Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [17th October, 23rd October, 24th October and 25 October] as relates to the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords], the Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [Lords], the British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [Lords], the Llanelli Borough Council (Barry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords], the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords], the Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords], the North Yorkshire County Council Bill [Lords], and the Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords] be now considered

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways end Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Mid Glamorgan Health Services

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Mid Glamorgan area health authority to discuss health services provision in Mid Glamorgan.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met health authority chairmen on 10 July and more recently at a briefing seminar in Cardiff on 19 October. He intends to meet them again early in the new year.

Mr. Powell: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. During the discussions, was the development of phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend discussed? In 1983, the Under-Secretary's predecessor promised me that phase 2 would be developed immediately on completion of phase 1. I do not want, as in the summit in Europe last weekend, a "No, no, no," from the Minister. I want a positive reply, because 250,000 of my constituents have been waiting more than seven years and trying to make do with half a hospital. Is not it about time that the Government fulfilled some of the promises made by Ministers?

Mr. Grist: I appreciate the strength of feeling of the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents on the issue. I also note how pleased they are with their new hospital. The issue of phase 2 is one for the hon. Gentleman's health authority, which has decided not to put it in its current 10-year programme.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that rumours are circulating in south Wales that the guidelines issued by the various health authorities dictate that if patients over the age of 70 suffer heart attacks, they should receive less priority treatment than those who suffer similar problems under the age of 70?

Mr. Grist: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should listen to such rumours.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Under-Secretary reconsider his reply on phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital? While the health authority has to make decisions on its capital spending programme, the truth is that, despite the extra money being put into the health service in Wales, it has not kept pace with the inflation rate. As a result, the hospital, which was promised in 1983, has not yet been completed. The consultants at the hospital feel that they have been betrayed by the Welsh Office. Would not it be a sign of real faith in the health service for the Government to declare that the extra funding will be provided so that the health authority can go ahead with the hospital?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the extra funding, which has meant that real funding—after inflation—in the health service in Wales has risen by about 50 per cent. under the Government. I should have thought that the consultants

and the others whom he mentioned would also be pleased with the treatment centre in the old hospital in Bridgend, and the amount that was spent on that.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that the waiting list in Mid Glamorgan has increased this year by 32 per cent., and that since 1979, Mid Glamorgan has lost 679 hospital beds, which must be lunacy? Does he acknowledge the concern felt by the Royal College of Nursing in Wales about underfunding and waiting lists, when all that nurses want is to be able to deliver their professional nursing care to more and more people? I warn the Minister that people in Wales are losing patience with his health service policies, which will lose the Minister his seat and his Government their power.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman must have a very cool mind, when one considers that under the previous Labour Government, there was only a 6 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated compared with 34 per cent. under the present Government—and that under Labour, out-patient treatment fell by 3 per cent. As to Mid Glamorgan's waiting list, in the 12 months to 31 March it reduced its urgent in-patient waiting list by 14 per cent.—the number of patients urgently awaiting treatment for one month or more—and its out-patient waiting list by 6·5 per cent., or 1,122. Mid Glamorgan also reduced the number of out-patients waiting three months or more.

Carers

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of carers in Wales to discuss matters of interest to carers.

Mr. Grist: I meet and have discussions with carers and their representatives throughout Wales frequently in the course of my ministerial duties—most recently last Friday, at the launch of the upper Afan valley elderly people's project.

Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by carers at the undermining of the principles of care in the community? Does he accept that they now receive inadequate support, and will he admit that his strategy for community care is to depend on carers without providing for them? Does he agree that it is inadequate to offer the answers that he has given about care in the community, and that there can be no confidence in a system whose finances are hidden within the revenue support system? There is now real fear of neglect in the community among carers and those for whom they care.

Mr. Grist: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has repeated the parrot cry that he does not trust local councils with the extra money that they are receiving through revenue support grant to provide community care. The hon. Gentleman should trust to the extra flexibility that local councils have to provide community care in the best way possible. The Government are absolutely committed to their community care proposals.

Mr. Skinner: Who is providing the resources?

Mr. Grist: Resources are already being provided. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will also be aware of the increased support announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Livestock

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current state of the Welsh livestock industry.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I have had a number of discussions recently with the farming unions, and the Government have taken a number of positive steps to help the Welsh livestock sector.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm the figures used by the Farmers Union of Wales, which show that farming incomes in the hill areas have reduced by 37 per cent. in comparison with 1986 levels? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the Prime Minister has her way and brings about a further 30 per cent. cut in farm support, it will have a catastrophic effect on the employment, environment and culture of rural Wales? Will the Minister take it upon himself personally to intervene, to see that alternative measures are put in place to offset the worst effects on those who will be hardest hit?

Mr. Hunt: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's own party supported the 30 per cent. reduction in farm support. If there has been a change in policy, the hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to make that clear. It is agreed that there should be such a cut, and discussions are continuing on how it should be implemented, on 1986 levels. As to the Welsh farming industry, I have constantly made it clear that a healthy agricultural sector is vital to the economic, environmental and social future of Wales. We have taken several steps, including advance payments on the sheep annual premium, the stickler cow premium, and beef intervention—the cost of which last week was running at about £6 million. The Government are doing what they can to assist in a very difficult situation.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware, from his meetings with Pembrokeshire farmers, of the serious concern that is felt in the farming industry at present. Can he give the House an assurance that if the GATT negotiations are successful and there are phased reductions in subsidies during the next few year, they will be properly managed and incremental, and that alternative means of support will be given to farmers, especially in environmental improvement?

Mr. Hunt: Of course, I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said. He is right to highlight the serious situation that would arise for Welsh agriculture if we were to enter a trade war and thus see many of our better export markets destroyed. That would be a catastrophe for Welsh farmers. Obviously, I am keeping closely in touch with those negotiations, which I hope will be successfully concluded. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that any changes must be gradual and incremental.

Mr. Livsey: What representations did the Secretary of State make to Brussels, prior to the announcement at the weekend of a cut so that only one third of farmers in the less-favoured areas in Wales will be included? Indeed, two thirds of those recommended by the Welsh Office were excluded. Could he tell us what representations he made to avoid that?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had worked out what we felt to be a reasonable

bid to the European Community. I have yet to receive formal notification of its decision, but I believe that the bid was realistic and achievable, and I hope that it will be successful. I urge the hon. Gentleman—unless the press report is incorrect—not to contact the French, in particular, to urge support for their attitude to agriculture, because I do not think that that is going down very well in Wales.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—that the livestock sector in Wales, in Scotland and in upland parts—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the livestock sector in Wales, Scotland and other upland parts of the United Kingdom is an essential part of our strategic planning so that we can supply food and resources to meet these islands' requirements? Does he further agree that the problems lie within Europe, where people cannot reach a decision on matters that are fundamentally important?

Mr. Hunt: I am glad that we get that level of support from my hon. Friend, who represents a Scottish constituency. It is vital that everybody throughout the Community realises how important a healthy agricultural livestock sector is for the future of Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the small family farm is struggling desperately, that financial disaster stares it in the face, and that he cannot expect our people to suffer in silence when they are deeply in debt and cut to the bone? Is not it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has no coherent policy whatever? We want the right hon. Gentleman to use the full weight of his office. We are getting tired of a cosmetic and over-sanguine approach. There is a crisis and he must act now.

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this subject, but I did not detect that he was putting forward an alternative policy. When he examines the issues, he will see that the important factor to bear in mind about Welsh agriculture is that we must continue to support family farms in Wales. We have very efficient farmers, and that is why we have so much to lose from a trade war. I was sad that he made no expression of his opinion on that important aspect.

Inward Investment

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the latest figures are for inward investment to Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the inward investment figures continue to be good, and that in 1989–90 about 120 inward investment projects were secured—a substantial increase over the previous year—safeguarding about 6,000 jobs and creating about 6,500 new jobs.

Mr. Greenway: Those are excellent figures and they clearly demonstrate that the Government's policy to rejuvenate the Welsh economy is making excel lent progress, but I fear that my right hon. Friend is telling the


House only part of the story. Can he confirm that that trend is continuing in the current year and prove that the voices of gloom and doom have got it wrong?

Mr. Hunt: I totally oppose the voices of gloom and doom in Wales. It has a great success story and we are proud of it. During the first six months of 1990 Wales attracted 61 inward investment projects, compared with 50 during the same period last year. All of Wales has benefited from 6,500 new and safeguarded jobs, compared with 5,944 last year. I praise all the component partners in that marvellous success story.

Mr. John P. Smith: As by far the largest concentration of investment has come to my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan—although I refuse to take all the credit for that—what does the Secretary of State propose for training initiatives to stop the poaching of highly skilled labour in local labour markets?

Mr. Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the praise—I detected it between the lines—that he bestowed on the Government for attracting such major inward investment to his constituency and for working closely with all the component parts of the partnership that we are proud to have in Wales. He is correct to highlight the importance of training, which is why we set so much store on the new training and enterprise councils. It is important to have a local training strategy that is shared locally, and especially one that is private sector led. That will be the success story of the TECs in Wales.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has had such good fortune. May I point out to the Secretary of State that, under his predecessor, Cynon Valley had the highest male unemployment rate in Wales; that under his predecessor's predecessor it also had the highest male unemployment rate; and it is still rising? What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have to reverse that trend and to attract inward investment into parts of Wales, such as Cynon Valley, which have suffered inordinately under the Government's policies?

Mr. Hunt: Now that I have had the opportunity to visit all the 19 valleys—I know that there are some subsidiary valleys that might object to that designation—I am carefully considering how best to take forward the programme for the valleys. I am aware of the problems in Cynon Valley. I have visited it and met representatives of local authorities. As I have acknowledged on many occasions, there are still pockets of poverty that are providing difficult to eradicate and areas with high unemployment rates that must be brought down—and I know that, in that, I share the hon. Lady's resolve.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that Members on the Plaid Cymru Benches do not echo the voices of gloom and doom about the prospects in Wales? However, to ensure that all of Wales benefits from inward investment and also to ensure that it is not confined only to the M4 corridor in the south and the A55 in the north, is not there a need to improve our north-south roads? Will he give an undertaking to review our roads programme with that in mind?

Mr. Hunt: Certainly. We are determined to try to do our best to improve all the infrastructure in Wales. However, I wish to take issue with the hon. Gentleman's

second point. It is difficult to say to inward investors that we are interested in them only if they come to a particular part of Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Provided that he joins us, which he does, in monitoring and propounding the success of the whole of Wales, there will be opportunities for all of Wales to share in the prosperity of inward investment.

Salmonella

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the report on the salmonella outbreak in Flint, Clwyd.

Mr. Grist: The report was published on 11 September. It made a number of recommendations on the handling of food poisoning outbreaks. These were incorporated in a Welsh Office circular sent to all district councils and health authorities, also on 11 September.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main lesson to be learnt from the salmonella outbreak in Flint is the need for one person to be put in overall charge of the handling of such an outbreak? Why has he confirmed the current confusing position, under which the medically qualified officer is employed by the health authority, but responsible to the district council chief executive?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend makes a slight error. Our best advice was that the proper officer should be the district health authority's consultant in communicable diseases control. The environmental health officer could be named as the proper officer, but our best advice is that a medically qualified person should be the proper officer.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he has undertaken of his Department's policies in respect to waiting lists in Wales; and what fresh initiatives he intends to take.

Mr. Grist: Since the launch of the waiting list initiative in 1986, over £5 million has been allocated separately to tackle problematic lists and, together with the further £1 million support for the three all-Wales treatment centres, that has resulted in the treatment of an extra 23,000 out-patients and 12,000 in-patients.
I am at present considering how to take forward those initiatives in the context of the new contracting process that will be introduced from 1 April 1991 when all health authorities will need to pay particular attention to waiting lists in the contracts that they negotiate with their providers.

Mr. Flynn: What is the Minister's response to the news that 3,000 additional hospital beds will close before next April to comply with the Government's finance first and patients last policies? Some of the beds are in Wales. Most of them, however, are in London, but they have been used over the years by Welsh patients as an escape route from the disgracefully high waiting lists in Wales. Does it mean that this winter will be the worst ever for waiting and suffering in Wales? Does the Minister have no response except to accelerate the conveyor belt surgery into overdrive?

Mr. Grist: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to day case treatment as conveyor belt surgery.


I hope not. Last year I had a hernia operation and was in hospital for two nights. There is no reason why many cases could not be treated in a day. I should have thought that that was good medical practice. The hon. Gentleman must also know that the number of beds does not denote the number of patients treated. That has increased by 34 per cent. in Wales under this Government, and it has little to do with the number of beds provided.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the Minister concerned about the state of hospital facilities in Gwent? For example, employees and constituents in Caldicot complain about the cut in facilities at Mount Pleasant hospital in Chepstow. There is also considerable criticism of the cuts in facilities on Ingram ward at St. Woolos hospital in Newport. What is the Minister doing about that, particularly as the local authority members of Gwent area health authority have been discarded in favour of local business men? Does not he agree that the local authority representatives would have been more sensitive to what is happening?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on at least part of the answer: that this is a matter for the district health authority. I believe, however, that the new district health authority membership is much more suited to the new system for running the national health service. Decisions on value for money and outcomes, not necessarily local parochial pressures, will be the test of a good national health service.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists are in part a reflection of the success of the NHS? Patients are now queuing up for treatments that previously were not available. My hon. Friend has already said that there has been an increase in the number of patients treated, which is a far better sign of what is happening. Could not that number be further improved if only the best practice in treating day patients were applied universally?

Mr. Grist: Absolutely. That is the Audit Commission's view, too. It is also the opinion of most people in the medical profession. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in the number of treatments. That is why, for instance, Rhydlafar specialises in hip replacements, an operation which, not so many years ago, was looked on as being at the frontiers of medical science.

"Our Common Inheritance"

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with which organisations he has been in consultation, and what communications have been received by his Department following the publication of the White Paper "Our Common Inheritance".

Mr. David Hunt: Since the publication of the White Paper I have been in consultation with 22 separate organisations and my Department has received 13 communications. I am placing a list of those in the Library of the House.

Dr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept, following his consultation, that it is important for the Department to have a clear environmental strategy for Wales so that we can make our contribution to maintaining the environmental balance throughout the

whole of the Principality? In particular, does not he realise how important it is to relate that to the strategic planning guidelines that his Department is developing, which would provide him with an opportunity to introduce the broader environmental strategy that Wales needs?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that on the day of the publication of the White Paper in Wales I made it clear that I propose to ask for the issue of green belts to be considered by all those concerned. If necessary, I shall expound and expand on it at a special conference that I am calling of all those concerned. It is very much at the forefront of my mind. We certainly intend to set a good example in Wales, and we are well on the way to doing just that.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a major omission in the White Paper about the problems of toxic waste in Wales? Does he accept, for instance, that the importation of toxic waste is particularly bad in the Principality, which has become the dumping ground for some of the world's deadliest poisons? Does he agree that the monitoring and licensing of toxic waste sites is a problem, and, in the light of that, is he prepared to comment on the incident yesterday in the Rhymney valley, where there was a serious explosion of cans and drums of chemical waste?

Mr. Hunt: I have been contacted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and other hon. Members about the explosion. I am awaiting a full report. I understand that the health and safety inspectorate is investigating and that the local authority is carefully considering the position. Toxic waste generally is obviously an important matter, and it is dealt with fully in the White Paper.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet the board of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the future development of the board's activities.

Mr. David Hunt: I am meeting the board of the Welsh Development Agency on 17 December.

Mr. Davies: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the next chief executive of the agency should be someone with solid experience in manufacturing industry, like the last one? Is he aware that there is considerable fear that the agency is turning itself into a property development agency, especially with the appointment of Mr. Malpas, who I believe is the property development director of Tesco? Every pithead bath now a Tesco? If we have a chief executive with the qualifications that I have suggested, that will go some way to allaying those fears.

Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman should choose his words with greater care. The vast majority of people in Wales are proud of the success of the Welsh Development Agency. I was sad that David Waterstone decided to move on. It is paramount to have the best possible candidate as chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency. When I consider all the areas and activities of the WDA, I am constantly impressed by how it leads the field in so many different ways.

Mr. Raffan: What progress has been made by the Welsh Development Agency in helping Delyn borough council find a new tenant for the Laura Ashley factory at Leeswood in my constituency, and what grants, if any, will be available to a potential tenant?

Mr. Hunt: Following my hon. Friend's approach to the Welsh Office, I assured myself just before entering the Chamber that everyone was working as hard as possible to find an alternative tenant. Obviously, a range of financial assistance is available, which is an important part of any equation. As yet, I am unable to report any progress.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the future success of the Welsh Development Agency is partly dependent on there being a separate, independent and complementary body for rural Wales? Will he give an absolute undertaking that the Development Board for Rural Wales will continue, and will he consider extending its remit, as its chairman wishes, to include tourism and certain aspects of agriculture?

Mr. Hunt: I regard the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales as absolutely vital. It forms an important part of my future strategy, and that of my ministerial colleagues, for Wales. It is important that all the different bodies work closely together. The DBRW needs to work closely with the Welsh tourist board. I know that Prys Edwards and Glyn Davies meet regularly to ensure that all the strategies are working together for the promotion of rural Wales.

Rail Service, North Wales

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on proposed changes to the rail service for north Wales next October.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am aware of some marginal changes to services from May 1991. I understand that there may be further changes to north Wales services from next October, if replacement rolling stock for inter-city services becomes available. The north Wales coast line may again be closed on Saturday night for track maintenance purposes.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that British Rail proposes, after the class 47 locos are retired, to service the north Wales main line either by using sprinter units, ensuring that everyone has to change at Crewe, or by introducing HSTs, not on a service direct to Euston, but via Leicester and into St. Pancras, thus making the journey at least an hour longer for anyone travelling from, say, Llandudno junction to Euston? Does the Minister agree that either of those solutions is unacceptable to the people of north Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that British Rail hopes to get its class 158 high-speed diesels to replace some existing stock. I understand that the option of getting inter-city 125s to run through St. Pancras is being considered and that there are certain advantages to that proposal. British Rail believes that there is a good potential market for north Wales and Irish travellers in the east midlands. There will be the Luton connection with the Thameslink services and the south coast. The proximity of

St. Pancras to King's Cross obviously enhances the prospect of joining up with the new terminal at King's Cross which will lead directly to the channel tunnel.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is there any change in the balance of argument for and against electrification of the north Wales rail link to Ireland, given the evident inexorability of speeding up progress towards a single European market in 1992 and also—just to be safe—of European monetary union by 1994 or thereabouts?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for British Rail to bring forward any proposal to electrify the line. The Government are prepared to approve investment proposals by British Rail, provided they are worth while. The case for electrification of the north Wales line has not yet been made.

Financial Services Initiative

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made on the financial services initiative; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: I am very happy to report that the financial services initiative is showing excellent progress, with employment up by 20 per cent. over the past three years. We look forward to further progress, particularly now that the area has been extended to cover mid-Glamorgan and the Swansea bay area.

Mr. Jones: I am glad to hear that answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the financial services initiative represents money well spent. Can he give the House an estimate of how many new jobs it has achieved and the total investment brought about by the initiative?

Mr. Hunt: Some 70,000 people are now employed in financial services. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, just before I came into the Chamber, I heard the news that Europe's leading legal expenses insurance group, German-owned DAS, is to locate a new United Kingdom claims handling unit at Bedwas, near Newport. That is marvellous news. I am delighted that such an internationally prestigious company as DAS has decided to come to Wales. It confirms that Wales is becoming the favoured location for financial services.

Hopsital Closures, South Glamorgan

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors he expects to take into account in deciding whether or not to approve the six hospital closures proposed by the South Glamorgan health authority.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend will be principally concerned with the impact upon patients and staff, but will also have regard more generally to all the representations made to him.

Mr. Morgan: How does the Minister intend to resolve the extraordinary position whereby South Glamorgan based its hospital closure proposals on the idea that it could close two hospitals, sell the land and build a new hospital with the receipts? Since then, the Welsh Office has changed the goalposts, sacked the referee and changed the shape of the ball as well. It no longer allows local health authorities to keep capital receipts for future hospital


expansion. How does the Minister intend to get out of this conundrum? Will he now tell South Glamorgan health authority what to do with its hospital closure proposals?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman goes a little far and appears to misunderstand the right of health authorities to retain their funds from capital receipts. He may be muddling this matter with the proposed changes under the new system, which will come into operation, in a phased way, after April 1991.

Telephone Service

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the telephone service in Wales with British Telecom.

Mr. David Hunt: I last met the general manager of British Telecom for Wales and the marches on Friday 19 October.

Mr. Coleman: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek a further meeting with British Telecom and to raise with the general manager the abuse of the telephone service by pornographic so-called chatlines? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable anxiety and distress that that is causing—particularly to families that are facing large telephone bills because of the use of these services, usually by young people? Will he take this matter up with British Telecom and get the practice stopped?

Mr. Hunt: Although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and for the director general, I should like to express my serious concern about the abuse of the service. I very much hope that the code of practice will put an end to this appalling situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Regional Opera

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the funding of regional opera.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. David Mellor): I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter, including a most persuasive letter from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greenway: May I welcome my right hon., learned and—now it is official—cultured Friend to the Dispatch Box for the first time as Minister for the Arts and wish him every success? As he knows, there is grave concern about the funding and financial position of Opera North, which receives one third less from the Arts Council than the Welsh National Opera and a quarter less than the Scottish Opera, although all three companies have almost identical programme commitments and have achieved a high standard of performance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the principle that equality of performance and programme should be matched by equality of funding?

Mr. Mellor: I thank my hon. Friend for his typically kind remarks. I am glad to be at the Dispatch Box in this capacity, but, like many hon. Members, I owe a great deal

to the distinguished stewardship of the post by my predecessor, and I shall have a lot to live up to in following in his footsteps.
Opera North certainly has a commendable record of success. One of the major achievements in opera over the past 10 years has been the way in which Opera North has established itself and I warmly congratulate the company on playing to 87 per cent. capacity audiences at its Leeds base. The detail of funding is a matter for the Arts Council, but I am certainly familiar with the figures that my hon. Friend has cited and I know that he will be putting them to the Arts Council with vigour.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the thanks that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed to his predecessor and I hope that he will do equally well for the arts. In considering national orchestras and opera houses that are located outside London, will he take into account the serious problems of underfunding that they will face with the present level of inflation?

Mr. Mellor: I came to this job having been vice-chairman of the trustees of a major orchestra, so I am certainly well aware of the problems that arts organisations face. But never before have arts organisations enjoyed such buoyant revenues at the box office or such a good spread of funding, with such a substantial contribution coming from the private sector in addition to the continuing contribution that the Government are committed to making and the contributions from local authorities. I repeat that there is a better spread of funding than ever before, but I do not underestimate the problems that inflation is causing and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am discussing them seriously with representatives of those organisations and with the Arts Council.

Dr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest blessings that he has inherited from his predecessor is the long-term funding of the arts, which allows provincial opera and theatre to plan ahead? My right hon. and learned Friend would be well advised to continue that and foster it for the funding of the arts which is so important.

Mr. Mellor: Three-year funding is an important development, because it allows people to know where they stand. It is also dependent on estimates of future changes which sometimes require fine tuning. I hope that we may see evidence of fine tuning shortly.

Theatres

Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of deficits in national and regional theatres in England and Wales.

Mr. Mellor: I understand that building-based drama companies funded by the Arts Council and the Welsh Arts Council have projected accumulated deficits at the end of the current financial year of £6·57 million. There are wide variations in the performance of individual companies, both national and regional, within this estimate.

Dr. Marek: The Minister could have been more honest. For example, he could have been specific and said that the Royal Shakespeare Company has a deficit of £3 million and has just turned off the lights at the Barbican for the


winter. What kind of Government can allow that to happen to one of our most prestigious companies which has an international reputation?

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to bandy about questions of honesty. If he had asked a question designed to elicit that answer, he would have got it. Unfortunately, he asked a different question and he received the answer to it. He might like to bear it in mind that had we merely index linked the contribution to the Arts Council that was current when the last Government were in office, we would have been paying it £134 million, instead of which this year we are paying it £175 million, a significant proportion of which goes to the Royal Shakespeare Company. I am of course aware of the particular difficulties facing the RSC and of the particular courage and skill with which it is trying to overcome them. I regularly discuss those matters with Mr. Geoffrey Cass and the Arts Council.

Mr. Jessel: Should not we build on our national strengths? As the Royal National theatre is a tremendous centre of excellence and a great national asset which draws hundreds of thousands of visitors to our shores annually, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider most carefully what can be done to uphold its remarkably high standards?

Mr. Mellor: A great deal is being done to uphold its remarkable standards in the sense that the grant in aid for the Royal National theatre has increased above the rate of inflation and the theatre is one of those that are not significantly in deficit at the moment. I am also delighted that it has been possible for funds to be found from a variety of sources to allow the Royal National theatre to undertake one of the longest overseas tours ever made by a British theatrical company. Having been in Japan in the immediate aftermath of its visit, I know how impressed the Japanese were with its performances.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister acknowledge that the predicament of the theatre, with 30 of the 32 clients of the Arts Council in serious deficit, is critical? The theatre is one of Britain's great successes for which the Government could claim some credit, but not if they do not recognise the need to inject a considerable amount of money and not stand behind the shield of the Arts Council. Does the Minister accept that, unless the Government act, the closure of the RSC's London venues will be inevitable, as Mr. Hands has said, and that would be a national shame and disaster?

Mr. Mellor: As I have already said, substantial improvements in funds have been made available to the Arts Council and it has then made them available to a range of clients including many of the theatres that have been mentioned. I am also aware of the problems of deficits which I am discussing with various concerned parties. Obviously, a number of points about financial difficulties form part of the representations that I have made to the Treasury recently.

Sir Antony Buck: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment, will he grasp an early opportunity to get around the provinces and visit some of the regional theatres where he will see the

excellence of the works that are produced, particularly in the Mercury theatre in Colchester, and hear of their funding problems?

Mr. Mellor: I am extremely keen to travel outside London, and, now that I have finished my labours on the Broadcasting Bill it will be easier for me to do so. Tomorrow, indeed, I have a full day in the west midlands, which will culminate in the inauguration of the Birmingham Royal Ballet at one of the leading theatres in Birmingham. I expect to spend at least one day a week out of London, doing exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has advised.

Mr. Fisher: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment, and welcome him to his new responsibilities. The House knows that he has a genuine and deep love of classical music: indeed, he has the reputation of having the largest collection of compact discs in the whole of Putney. However, he must know that he will be judged not on the size of his CD collection, but on his ability to obtain money for the arts.
As several hon. Members have already said, the arts are facing a financial crisis. He knows that this week the Royal Shakespeare Company goes dark in London, and that the Theatre in Crisis campaign, launched today, identifies 30 of the 32 English repertory theatres as being in deficit. When we add the national theatres, the real deficit figure for the performing arts is £16 million.
Will the Minister tell the House today whether he believes—as we do in the Labour party—that the arts should receive an increase this year above the rate of inflation? On that will depend whether his time at the Dispatch Box is happy or unhappy. One thing is certain: it will be a short time before the next general election and a Labour Government who do value the arts.

Mr. Mellor: rose——

Mr. Tony Banks: Sell your CD collection.

Mr. Mellor: Or perhaps my season ticket to Stamford Bridge.

Mr. Banks: No, no.

Mr. Mellor: Before we get down to the nasty business, let me say politely to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that I wish him a very happy birthday. May he pass many happy birthdays sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
I have already made it clear that the Government have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the level of state funding. I have made to the Treasury the case for increases, with what effect will soon be revealed. It is also the case that a successful theatre, like any successful arts organisation, must look to others for assistance and must run its affairs properly. State funding is only one part of that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central would speak from the Dispatch Box with much more credibility on these points if he took the matter up with some of the Labour councils which, for purely political reasons, are cutting their grants to the arts. For instance, how can he justify the position at the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith, where £100,000 of grant is to be lopped off by a council which has increased its staff by 1,000 in the past four years and does not propose to make any of them redundant, preferring to sacrifice the arts instead?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

European Community

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps his Department is taking to assist and encourage more Britons to take up positions within the institutions of the European Community.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. David Mellor): Last month I launched the European fast-stream, a new recruitment and training scheme, to help British candidates prepare for the Community competitions. A new unit has been set up in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate our efforts to improve British representation in the European Community institutions, in conjunction with the European Commission, which has recognised that it shares the responsibility for tackling the problem.

Mr. Field: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new position as Minister for the civil service, and express the hope that—as he is an avid supporter of Chelsea football club—under his direction the civil service will behave considerably better than the Chelsea fans? Can he confirm that those Whitehall warriors who take part in the new European fast-stream scheme will be able to return to a career in the home civil service should they find the task of shooting EMUs not to their liking—or, indeed, the mission of teaching civility to Europe's most uncivil servant, Mr. Jacques Delors, an impossible one?

Mr. Mellor: I am glad of my hon. Friend's commendation of our European fast-stream initiative, the aim of which is to allow people to start off as members of the British civil service so that they have certain guarantees of employment, which would otherwise be very difficult. I am delighted to say that of the 2,600 applicants for administrative appointments in the civil service, half have asked to be considered for the European fast-stream scheme and more than 500 have stated it as their first choice. I hope that, through the scheme, we shall make a large stride towards addressing the under-representation of Britain within institutions in the European Community.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister check with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that children in schools throughout the United Kingdom have the opportunity to study the appropriate number of European Community languages so that they are able to take up positions in Europe with the European Commission? It is an important question, because, as the Minister knows, the Government clearly have no influence in Europe any more, and the best that we can do now is to try to influence the European Commission through the civil servants who work in it.

Mr. Mellor: Although the hon. Gentleman has changed seats, his tone seems very much the same—alas. There has been an improvement in the teaching of Community languages in schools. I am glad to be able to say that, because—the hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is an important point. It is a traditional British failing—I certainly share it and perhaps the hon. Gentleman does as well—that there is an inability to speak a foreign language fluently. One of the things that we are making available to people who apply for our European fast-stream course is

tuition in a foreign language. I hope that a number of them who get to the point of applying will already be expert as a result of what has happened at school and university.

Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage a larger number of secondments of quite senior civil service personnel to European Community institutions? In particular, will he ensure that a period of secondment is treated as a positive career asset upon possible return to the home civil service?

Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that a period of secondment to the European Community has been a great asset to my hon. Friend. Certainly we are alive to all the various ways of trying to ensure that our present under-representation ceases.

Agencies

Mr. Beith: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress and future plans on the creation of agencies.

Mr. Mellor: On Wednesday we intend to publish t he Government's response to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's recent supportive report on next steps. On the same day we will also be publishing the first annual review of next steps.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get the best out of the useful programme of reform, there should be a unit in the Minister's own Department to oversee the effectiveness of the way in which the programme is being carried on and that Select Committees of this House must exercise their responsibility to scrutinise committees? Will he see that the first step is taken? Does he agree that it would be difficult to take the second step while we have no Scottish Select Committee and no Select Committee overseeing the work of legal Departments?

Mr. Mellor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee makes clear, there is ample scope for a constructive analysis of what is happening. Indeed, there is a great deal of useful material in the report to which we can respond on Wednesday.
On scrutiny within my own Department, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the key elements of the next steps strategy—indeed, it is a fundamental base of it—is setting the agencies a set of tasks and rigorously monitoring whether those tasks have been achieved. Indeed, the performance-related pay of senior staff depends on it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of monitoring. It is of the essence that we not merely change certain of the frameworks of work activity but actually improve performance.

Mr. Hanley: Is not the next steps programme proving popular to the civil servants who work in it and also delivering better service to customers?

Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Conditions of Service

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service trade unions about conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: From time to time I receive representations from the civil service trade unions on a wide range of issues.

Mr. Skinner: When the Minister meets trade union representatives, will he tell them that he looks forward to the day when he will be able to negotiate civil servants' pay in a mark-dominated European currency?

Mr. Mellor: That will not be part of my presentation.

Mr. Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that not very long ago an announcement was made in the House that the Ministry of Defence would transfer many of its jobs to the north-east of England and to Teesside. However, it was announced in the north-east last week that that project may well be knocked on the head as a result of representations that have been made by the trade unions of the civil servants who do not wish to move to the north-east of England. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity of saying that he will not allow such recalcitrance to stand in the way of a worthy project?

Mr. Mellor: Like the whole House, I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall certainly pass his remarks on to the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for the move. It is not one of my responsibilities. However, I am proud of the fact that under this Government four out of five civil

servants work outside Greater London. That is a significant and important development, to which we remain committed.

Special Advisers

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current number of special advisers in the civil service; and what was the figure 12 months ago.

Mr. Mellor: Thirty-three currently; and 31 twelve months ago.

Mr. Banks: That is a significant increase in the number of special advisers. May I congratulate the Minister on his job and express the hope that, despite having two additional jobs, he will still find the time to kick up a bit of dust down at Stamford Bridge? Does he agree that it is now time to consider the issue of the politicisation of the civil service, given that there have been a number of senior appointments, not only in the special adviser area, but elsewhere, that suggest that we should either become honest and decide that we are going to operate a spoils system or the Government should pull up the stumps and stop appointing people who, under the Prime Minister's dictum, are clearly "one of them"?

Mr. Mellor: Thirty-three out of 500,000 is not a substantial proportion. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about other political appointments and should be interested to know chapter and verse on that. As far as I am aware, appointment to senior ranks of the civil service is entirely on merit. The hon. Gentleman might need further to particularise the charge that he has made before any of us can evaluate it fully.

Oral Questions

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about oral questions next Session.
The House has now agreed to the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to oral questions and to certain changes in the relevant Standing Orders. The main effects of this decision will be that, as from the first day of the next Session, Wednesday 7 November, oral questions will have to he tabled in person by hon. Members, and only a limited number of oral questions tabled will be printed. The Table Office has prepared a short note explaining the exact effects of the changes, and this will be available to hon. Members in the Table Office and in the Whips' Offices.
The Procedure Committee Report left one or two matters to my discretion, in particular the exact number of questions to be printed, and the timing of the shuffle. So far as numbers are concerned, I propose initially to authorise the numbers suggested in the report. Accordingly, for those Departments answering for the whole of Question Time, a maximum of 40 questions will be printed. For those Departments answering until 3.10 or 3.15, the maximum figure will be 30. For the Prime Minister the figure will be 10. Similarly, for the smaller Departments that answer for five or 10 minutes, the maximum will also be 10. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I will review those figures from time to time in the light of experience.
The present deadline for oral questions to be included in the daily "shuffle" will be extended from 4 pm to 5 pm. Again, I will review this when the new system has been in operation for a period.
I hope that any hon. Member who is still uncertain about how the new system will operate will not hesitate to consult the Table Office before I he House is prorogued, so that the new system can get off to a smooth start on 7 November.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that any points of order can arise from that—it is an Order of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you please explain, the question of—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Cryer first.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that arises is about the number of Prime Minister's questions, which has been set at 10. What will happen if hon. Members pull out, as they frequently do, both in Prime Minister's Question Time and in other Question Times? Will the maximum number of questions take it into account that some hon. Members who are lucky enough to be in the first 10 may pull out before Prime Minister's Question Time starts? Will

questions then include the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and so on, as for other Question Times, to replace the withdrawn questions?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to answer one point at a time. If hon. Members table questions themselves—that will be the procedure in the future—I should be surprised if a large number of them who are in the first 10 do pull out.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, on behalf of the Procedure Committee, thank you for acting within two working days of the recommendation of the House to bring in something that will, first, benefit the real Members of Parliament——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is a bit provocative. We are all real Members of Parliament!

Sir Peter Emery: Allow me to finish my question, Sir. It will benefit real Members who do not take part in the syndicalisation of questions, which is likely——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I hope that the hon. Member is coming to a conclusion.

Sir Peter Emery: It is likely to result in a saving to the Exchequer of something over £3 million. The House should be grateful.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned in your remarks that the limit on Prime Minister's questions would be 10. I suggest that you look at that afresh because you will find, on examination, that in the past two or three years, there have been at least three occasions when 10 was exceeded. There was one occasion when you personally called more than 14 because people were missing and so on. It is not a matter of hon. Members pulling the questions out if they are in the first 10. Towards the end of a Session when hon. Members are missing, as on two previous occasions, we could finish up running short.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not really want further points of order on this. It is not for me to second-guess what the Select Committee has decided and recommended. I have already said to the whole House that I shall keep t he matter under review. If I think that the maximum numbers need to be increased, that will certainly be done. I shall take one more point of order.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly said that you will monitor the new arrangements. May I ask in particular that you pay attention to the geographical distance of some constituencies from the House? The extension from 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock will not make much difference to Members from the north of Scotland, the regions of England and Wales, who are not within easy communication distance of the House. Will you ensure that we are not in any way disadvantaged when tabling questions?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot interfere with the shuffle. I hope that the hon. Lady is not asking me to do that.

Child Maintenance

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for a new system for securing the maintenance of children, on which a White Paper entitled "Children Come First" is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.
I should emphasise at the outset that, while it seemed appropriate for me as Social Security Secretary to make this statement, the purpose and context of these proposals extend well beyond my Department. The White Paper is presented jointly by myself, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also making a statement today in another place.
Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare, of the children is the prime consideration. An effective system for securing their financial maintenance is an important element in achieving that objective.
The present arrangements are, by common consent, deficient. As the various surveys and background papers published with this White Paper clearly show, they are fragmented, inconsistent, and too often subject to uncertainty and delay. They lack systematic provision for review and updating as circumstances change. Even where a maintenance obligation has been clearly established, it can be difficult to enforce and the caring parent may face great additional difficulties and pressures in protecting the children's rights.
The result is that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers currently receive maintenance for their children regularly, and that some two thirds of lone parents and their children now depend wholly or partly on income support. Such a position is in the interests of neither the parents nor, above all, the children, and, of course, it places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes. The cost of income-related benefits for lone parents has risen, in real terms, from less than £1·5 billion in 1981–82 to more than £3 billion in 1988–89.
As the House is aware, a number of steps have already been taken, either administratively or through legal changes such as those in the recent Social Security Act 1989 to make improvements within the present system. We shall press ahead with those, since it will clearly take time to undertake wider reform, but the Government have firmly concluded that such wider reform is now required, and the White Paper sets out our proposals.
There are three major elements in those proposals. The first is a clear formula for the assessment of maintenance, which can be applied administratively rather than through the courts. The aim here is to establish a single system available to all, giving consistent and predicable decisions with a realistic relationship to the costs of providing for the care of a child, and the subject to regular reviews. The

second is a purpose-built agency to undertake the assessment itself, and the work of collection and enforcement where necessary. The third is measures to enhance the payment of maintenance as a foundation on which lone parents can build greater independence for themselves and their children. I will deal briefly with each in turn.
The assessment formula will itself consist of three main parts. The starting point will be the calculation of a maintenance bill, which the parents will be expected to pay if they can afford to do so. It will be based on the appropriate income support rates, including the caring parent's own personal allowance. That represents the costs of caring for the children, and will thus take account of the number and age of the children.
Once the bill is calculated, the next step will be to assess the amount which the absent parent keeps from his net—I stress "net"—income for his own necessary expenses. That is described in the White Paper as "exempt income" and it will include his reasonable housing costs and the costs of any other children he is liable to support. There will, additionally, be a protected level of income, set by reference to the income support level, to avoid the situation in which the absent parent could be better off on benefit than in work.
Thirdly, the amount expected to be paid in maintenance is then worked out on the basis of sharing the remaining income—what is left after allowing for the necessary expenses—equally with the children, up to the point at which the maintenance bill is met. Once that has occurred, contributions will continue, but taking a smaller share of any additional exempt income and thus, as would be expected in any family, the children will share in the standard of living of their parents. Where the caring parent has sufficient income, he or she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill.
Absent parents on income support have the same basic resoponsibility towards their children as others, and we therefore think it right both to bring them within the system and, with appropriate exceptions, to expect from them a small maintenance contribution. The White Paper suggests 5 per cent. of the adult personal allowance, in line with the standard deductions made for other purposes. We hope to begin applying the formula within the current system from early in 1992.
The second main element in our proposals is the establishment of a Child Support Agency. It will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require information and to determine the method of payment. It will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the Agency will operate as a "next steps" executive agency within my Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When the agency is fully operational, the courts will no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. Those matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. We hope that the


agency will begin work in early 1993, though the number of cases potentially involved means that it will be some time before all existing cases can be taken on.
Parents may choose to apply to the agency or make their own private arrangements, using if they wish the published formula. Where, however, the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children—that is to say, where the public can be seen to have an interest—she will be obliged to use the agency's services.
Since it is no more acceptable for a caring parent simply to choose not to seek maintenance than for an absent parent simply to choose not to pay it, we think it right—again with appropriate exceptions—to make it possible for a deduction to be made from the adult personal allowance if he or she unreasonably refuses to help in pursuing it.
The third element in our proposals, to which I also attach great importance, is one which builds on the advantages of regular payments of maintenance in making it easier for lone parents, as many wish to do, to move from reliance on income support into work and thus greater independence. To that end we propose, at the same time as the formula is introduced, to make two significant changes in benefit rules.
One is to introduce into family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit a maintenance disregard of £15 a week, so that only above that level will maintenance have any effect on the help otherwise given by those benefits to parents who are working. The other will be to widen the scope of family credit for all parents, but in a way likely to be of particular importance to lone parents. We shall make it possible to claim this benefit when working only for 16 hours weekly, instead of the present 24. That should make it much easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for their children. A parallel change will be made in the income support rules, so that that can be claimed only when working less than 16 hours.
In making those changes, we shall ensure full transitional protection for the small number of people who might otherwise be adversely affected. The choice of whether to work or not must of course be for the parent, but it is clear that many wish to do so, and where that is so it is right that we should seek to help, as these measures will.
Our proposals for a formula and an agency, including the rights of appeal to whose precise form we are giving further consideration, will require legislation. That will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In the first two years, our proposals will give rise to some additional net expenditure, principally in establishing the agency and in making the benefit changes I have just described. From then onwards, however, we expect to see net savings, initially modest but building up in the longer term. More important, however, we shall have a system which better serves the parents and the children themselves. In conjunction with the Children Act 1989 and the wide-ranging review of the family justice system as a whole, which the Government have in hand it is an important further step in making sure that children do indeed come first.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we strongly support the principle of the state assisting with the collection of child maintenance

and agree that fathers should be expected to accept responsibility for their children? As the House knows, I issued a consultation paper last year, making that proposal a month before the Prime Minister's speech recommending it, which demonstrates that there is cross-party support in the House for this principle.
However, we have considerable reservations about the means by which the right hon. Gentleman intends to operate the agency. In particular, is it not clear from the way that the Government have drafted the scheme that the main intention is to save public expenditure rather than to remedy child poverty and enable lone parents to gain self-sufficiency? When there has been time for people clearly to read the paper, perhaps they will think that it should have been entitled not "Children Come First" but "The Treasury Comes First."
For a mother on income support, where the right hon. Gentleman is proposing no disregard on maintenance—so the mother is permitted to keep none of the money collected without a corresponding reduction in her income support—it is clear that she gains nothing; only the Government gain, through a reduction in public expenditure. Will not the father feel intense resentment that none of his enforced maintenance will go to the child or to the mother, but only to the Department of Social Security? Is not the lack of a maintenance disregard when the mother stays at home with her child a basic flaw in the scheme, as without it, neither mother nor father will have an incentive to participate? Does not that reveal that the real purpose behind the scheme is to save Government expenditure?
If the mother does seek a job, will the £15 maintenance disregard that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for family credit, really assist her in gaining her independence when she still has to meet far higher expenses in child care costs and, if she is an owner occupier, in mortgage interest payments? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given those large offsets, a mother would probably have to earn more than £150 a week—10 times as much—before she was better off than she would be on income support?
Will a £15 maintenance disregard on family credit offer much of a pathway out of poverty? According to a recent CBI survey, 70 per cent. of lone parents want to work but cannot because there is no child care provision available. Is it not clear that, without those other elements, of a genuine family policy, which the Government have so far grossly neglected, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will do very little either to cure poverty or to help lone parents to regain their independence?
As to the father—the absent parent is usually the father—will not the requirement for him to pay up to 50 per cent. of his income, after allowances for necessary personal expenses, simply transfer poverty from the first family to the second family if the father has other children in another relationship?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that surveys have shown that up to one third of men liable to pay child maintenance are either unemployed or on very low incomes, so that, even given a protected income for the second family at income support levels, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will simply leave both families on the poverty line? Does he not understand that, if he takes a punitive attitude to absent fathers and forces them to make unreasonable levels of payment, he will create hostility and antagonism and damage the relationship between the absent father and his child?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he wanted a scheme along the lines of the Australian and Wisconsin models, whereby the father would pay to support the child, and at much lower percentages of his income—but the Treasury insisted that the father should pay for the full maintenance costs of the mother as well, including her mortgage interest payments, up to the crippling rate of 50 per cent.?
Does not that again expose the fact that it is a cost saving, not a poverty reducing, exercise? Is it not likely that a penal 50 per cent. repayment rate will have the perverse result of pushing more second families into dependence on benefit than it will rescue first families from it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also reconsider the element of compulsion in the scheme, which forces the mother to name the father on pain of otherwise losing up to 20 per cent. of benefit? Will the mother have an untramelled right——

Ms. Clare Short: Some of the children are yours.

Mr. Meacher: —to refuse to name the father when she fears that he might be violent or where she may not be certain that she knows who is the father?—[Interruption.]

Ms. Short: They might have illegitimate children.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All these interruptions take time. We are in the middle of hearing a response to the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Hayes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that an allegation has been made against the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hayes: A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I had sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.

Ms. Short: I was not referring, Mr. Speaker, just to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), but was pointing out to Conservative Members that some of them may have fathered children that they do not know about—and might end up being named.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an unworthy allegation for the hon. Lady to make. I ask her to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Ms. Short: The point that I am making is about all men.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady specifically mentioned Conservative Members, and it is that remark that I am asking her to withdraw.

Ms. Short: It was clear that I was not speaking only——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that I heard the hon. Lady refer—in fact, I think that she did refer—to Conservative Members. I am asking her to withdraw not the generality of her remark but the allegation against Conservative Members.

Ms. Short: I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that many men—including those on the Conservative Benches, and on these Benches, and outside——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Lady to do the right thing. She knows exactly what I am asking her to do, and I ask her please to do it now.

Ms. Short: I am very sorry about this, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to challenge your authority, but I mean the point that I am making, which is not just about Conservative Members but includes them. I mean it, and I am very sorry, but I am not willing to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and she must withdraw her allegation against Conservative Members. That is what she has said, and if she looks at the record in Hansard she will see that that is what she said. That is what I am asking her to withdraw, please.

Ms. Short: This is not fair and not reasonable.

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Ms. Short: I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, when Conservative Members were heckling——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on. We have a very busy day ahead. The hon. Lady knows exactly what I am asking her to do, as does the whole House.

Ms. Short: I have made no specific allegations, Mr. Speaker, against any right hon. or hon. Member.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes you have."] I am sorry, but I was making a point about the statement, and about forcing women to name the fathers of their children.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be deeply reluctant to have to take further action in relation to the hon. Lady. I heard her say it and the House heard her make an allegation against hon. Gentlemen. That is what I am asking her to withdraw. Will she now withdraw that, so that we can get on?

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I shall not deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am dealing with the hon. Lady.

Ms. Short: I did not, and no one in the House heard me, make a specific allegation about any hon. Member. I am making a point that I mean, and it is important. I respect you greatly, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to be bullied on this matter. I have not broken the rules of the House. I have not made an allegation against any hon. Member, and I would not do so.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we cannot continue like this. I heard the hon. Lady make that allegation—[Interruption.] I am dealing with it. All the hon. Lady needs to do is to get up and withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members in the House. I am not asking her to withdraw a reflection on men in general. That is a matter for her. Will she withdraw any reflection upon hon. Members?

Ms. Short: I was making a comment about men in general and there are a lot of men in the House, and that is the only sense in which it is a reflection. I am not casting


any aspersions on individual hon. Members. I am making a serious and important point about men in general. It just happens to be the case that a lot of hon. Members are men, that is all.

Mr. Speaker: I have said that I do not think that that is good enough. The hon. Lady is a Front Bench spokeswoman. I am asking her to do the right and honourable thing, otherwise I much regret that I shall have to take action which I would deeply regret.

Ms. Short: But it is not fair.

Mr. Speaker: I am asking her to do it.

Mr. Meacher: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No, order. I am asking her to do it. She has already said that she has respect for the Chair, and I believe her. I am asking her to withdraw any reflection on any hon. Member.

Miss Joan Lestor: rose——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. I am asking the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.

Ms. Short: I am extremely sorry about this. One of the reasons I came into politics was that I did not like bullying. I am not casting any aspersions on any hon. Member, truly I am not. It seems to me that if you thought there was an aspersion it requires a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker, but I did not cast such an aspersion and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I mean the other point that I made, and it is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask for the extract of Hansardto be brought down to me so that I can check and see exactly what was said. If what I think the hon. Lady said is in Hansard I shall expect her to withdraw it. We must now get on.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
I was talking about the important point of principle—the compulsion for a mother to name a father. I asked the Secretary of State whether the mother will have an untrammelled right to refuse to name the father, when she fears that he might be violent or when she is not certain who the father is. If not, how will the right hon. Gentleman avoid going down the road of compulsory blood testing, paternity suits and genetic fingerprinting?
I strongly urge him to say, in general, what guarantee he can give that the power to withhold benefit will not be biased in favour of cost saving rather than protecting the basic right of the mother. We are also very concerned that the Government are removing the freedom to choose to stay at home with their children from lone parents on benefit, even if that is in their children's interests.
Does the righ hon. Gentleman accept that the thrust of his proposals is to drive lone parents into work, whatever the needs of their children? Since the absent father will have to pay to maintain the mother if she does not work, he will no doubt pressurise her to work. She will be allowed to keep the £15 a week maintenance only if she claims benefits associated with low pay but not if she chooses to stay at home with her children.
This is potentially a very important new scheme, but its proposed methods of operation are seriously flawed. It will be effective only if its structure is designed not primarily to

save the Government money but as part of a wider family policy to remedy child poverty and help lone parents—both mothers and fathers—to gain security and freedom of choice.

Mr. Newton: May I assure the House that I have no intention of taking the risk of making any general observation about women? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. There are a considerable number of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill, and I know that the House is anxious to reach a conclusion on at least one very important amendment. The House will have to sit very late if we do not get on with the statement.

Mr. Newton: I welcome, in the spirit in which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered it, his general support for the principle of what the Government are seeking to do and the clear expression that he gave to it. I am sure that others will also welcome his general support. I welcome rather less some of the hon. Gentleman's other comments, not least because they went some way towards misrepresenting our proposals.
It is far-fetched to suggest that the only aim is to save money in circumstances in which the first result of the Government's proposals, including not least the benefit improvements to the in-work benefits, is to increase, riot reduce, expenditure. I reject also the suggestion that, where maintenance is paid, there is no gain to those on income support and that the only beneficiary is the taxpayer. Given that the taxpayer has been picking up a bill that was not properly the taxpayer's, simply because maintenance was not being paid, it is far form clear that it is either rational or logical to believe that the taxpayer should continue to pay that bill, even when maintenance is being propertly paid.
Moreover, from the point of view of lone parents, especially those many who wish to work, the fact that maintenance is to be paid to the lone parent will put her in a substantially better position if and when she is able to take work. That is portable income which goes with her; it is hers by right when she moves off benefit. It provides a better platform for the transition.
As for the £15 disregard, the hon. Gentleman has probably not yet had time to study the examples in the White Paper. However, he will see that that, especially when taken in conjunction with what we have done this very month to improve the housing benefit earnings disregard, significantly improves the return that many lone parents will get from working. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
We estimate that the combination of the proposals that I have included in the White Paper will enable between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents who currently do not feel that they are able to go out to work to do so. That is a gain, from everybody's point of view.
One of the hon. Gentleman's last points was his allegation that, somehow, we are compelling lone caring parents to name the father. There is no question of compulsion. It is worth remembering that between 80 and 90 per cent. of never-married mothers readily assist in tracing and collecting maintenance from the father. We shall make the necessary exceptions for circumstances such as rape and incest. Before any action was taken under the proposal that I have announced, there would be a considerable amount of sympathetic investigation by


trained officers to establish whether a lone parent had reasonable grounds. Where it was found that those grounds were not reasonable, there would be the usual right of appeal under the social security system. That is not a draconian step but a reasonable one in the circumstances of our policy as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had in some way been attracted by one or other of the ingredients of some of the foreign schemes that we have considered. He has misread the position. I was not particularly attracted by the Wisconsin scheme, to which he especially referred. That relates to the absent parent's gross income, which means that the percentage figures that are sometimes quoted represent a much higher figure than those that I have suggested. It makes no allowance for second families, and in many ways it does not seem to be a satisfactory model.
On the point that we are somehow seeking to take half of an absent parent's income, I stress that we are talking about sharing the income that is left after taking the absent parent's net income—his income after tax and national insurance. We are allowing for reasonable housing costs and other obligations and then sharing the rest of the income with the children. The net result, in most cases, is nothing like 50 per cent. but much more like a quarter, and when compared with gross income it is more like 20 per cent. For people on reasonable earnings to be expected to contribute 20 per cent. of their income to the maintenance of their children is in no way unreasonable, and I believe that it will have widespread public support.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will receive much welcome from my constituents, many of whom are lone mothers with children and who have been unable to get out of the housing and income cycle because of the absence of support from the father of their children? Will he consider the group of young males, many of whom are under the age of 18, who compete to father as many children as they can? Will he consider particularly carefully the incomes that they will provide? Will such payments be made through their parents until, once they are 18, they can pay for themselves?

Mr. Newton: There is no proposal in the White Paper, nor do I have such a proposal, seeking to take money from parents one generation upwards. The formula that we are proposing provides for, and takes account of, the circumstances when young men have acquired the responsibility that inescapably goes with fathering children. I think that my hon. Friend will find that clearly set out in the paper.

Mr. Frank Field: May I give a general welcome to the Secretary of State's statement? Why, as the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family, has it taken so long to bring forward these proposals, when over the past 11 years the idea that parents should support their children has, for a large group of the population, collapsed as a principle affecting their private conduct? Does he accept that many constituents will be pleased that there may be a saving in public expenditure? Some Labour Members do not wish low-wage earners to contribute to the Exchequer when people on higher incomes could but do not make maintenance payments for their children.
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that two areas will probably concern many families, particularly women? First, although it is logical to say, "The father should pay maintenance, so why should the mother keep any of it?", public policy does not often work satisfactorily if one allows only for logic. We must work with the grain of human nature, and surely an incentive might make a big difference.
Secondly, while a few mothers may decide to be cussed and not name the father of their children, many other women, for good reasons, will not wish to give his name, and many of them will be frightened to do so. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this policy will be conducted sensibly enough to make sure that not only those who can without any worry to themselves disclose the name, do so, but those who would be frightened to do so do not have to pay the penalty of a cut in benefit if they refuse?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has supported the generality of the proposals, just as he has consistently done over a long period.
I have already commented on the incentives issue. It is right to focus what we are doing principally on in-work benefits rather than out-of-work benefits, for reasons which are set out in the White Paper and which I explained.
I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which the hon. Gentleman put his last point. I have made it clear that there will be provision for no deductions to be made in circumstances where it is judged reasonable that the caring parent should not wish to assist in pursuing maintenance. That must inescapably be a matter of judgment by trained officers on the basis of skilled interviewing.
One of the advantages of setting up a purpose-built agency is that we are much more likely to have that kind of staff than we are under the present arrangements. The hon. Gentleman can have my personal assurance that it is not our intention to "pursue" people in this way—if we want to use that kind of language—where they have a good reasoon for not co-operating.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these welcome measures should encourage a greater sense of responsibility, so that more parents stand by their children in the first place? On a point of interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), will my right hon. Friend confirm that courts will have the power to use genetic tests in disputed cases?

Mr. Newton: I said in my statement that disputes about paternity will be matters for the courts. It is open to them to use precisely the same techniques and methods as they use now to establish the truth in a disputed paternity case. On my hon. Friend's wider point, I hope that these measures will have that effect, but they will have the advantage of making the situation that follows a breakdown or separation clearer and less of a lottery and hassle than it too often is at present. That will be a clear social gain for all involved.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from our point of view, it is right and just that a father who can pay but will not should be pursued? We understand that, if this policy


is enforced inflexibly, it will cause more trouble than it is worth. Any divorce lawyer will tell the right hon. Gentleman that many divorced women happily forgo their right to alimony and maintenance on condition that the former husband forgoes the right of access to the child? Many estranged husbands deliberately use a weapon of torment against their former wives—access to the children of the marriage. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Child Support Agency will protect women whose husbands say to them, "I am paying for these brats and I will jolly well see them,"—usually at Christmas?

Mr. Newton: The two issues are clearly seen in the White Paper, and perhaps even more clearly seen in my mind, as entirely separate. To the extent that one is used as a lever in respect of the other, I am opposed to that. One advantage of our proposal is that it will make it much more difficult for people to use maintenance as a lever separately from access questions, which need to be separately resolved, because it will be much more difficult to avoid maintenance.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not a scandal that only 23 per cent. of single-parent families are supported by the missing father? Is not the most important point that we have heard today the fact that this agency will pursue these fathers to contribute, which will be of value to particular families? Is it not important that these contributions will frequently go far beyond the benefit level that the mothers have been enjoying and, therefore, the narrow view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meecher) is not the key point to the mothers concerned?

Mr. Newton: There will certainly be some cases in which the effective establishment of maintenance will obviate the need for income support but, as I have already said, it is my guess that the greater effect—certainly in terms of numbers—will be to provide a firmer platform on the basis of which lone parents can move into work with confidence should they wish to do so. Whichever is the case, and whatever the precise numbers turn out to be—we are talking about behavioural effects, which are difficult to measure with precision—I am sure that the parents involved will gain.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: May I press the Minister on the question of women and children who are attempting to escape from a physically violent relationship with the man in the family or from mental torture by him? The Secretary of State has not made it clear enough how women and children will be protected from harassment and danger. He ought to acknowledge to the House the fact that it is for the woman and children themselves to judge whether they need to be protected from the man. The new agency will claim the right to intervene in that very private relationship. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that women and children are not left open to more violence and harassment—the exact reasons why they got rid of the man in the first place?

Mr. Newton: Just as with the present system, cases in which violence occurs or is threatened in the way that the hon. Lady suggests will be a matter for agencies other than the Department of Social Security—most obviously, the police. The officers employed by the Child Support Agency will need to examine carefully all the circumstances, including any record of threats of the kind to which the

hon. Lady has referred, in assessing whether or not the attitude of a lone parent is reasonable in a particular case. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, she will realise that there is no other way in which such a system could work.

Sir David Price: On the continuing problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders, will the new Child Support Agency have the powers and trained staff to chase up delinquent fathers who persistently fail to pay maintenance? Can my right hon. Friend reassure mothers that there will be a higher level of payments than at present?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks, and on every calculation and expectation that we have, the net result of the proposals will be to increase considerably the average maintenance payment and the number of those receiving maintenance.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that maintenance payments involving children will no longer be the responsibility of the courts, given that the existing arrangements have caused great anxiety to mothers and have created great bitterness between mothers and fathers in relation not only to maintenance but to access.
It is clear that the distinction will be helpful and the Secretary of State will accept that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the courts will no longer be responsible for the setting of maintenance orders in particular. But I am still worried about enforcement and, having had a brief look at the contents of the White Paper, I confess that I do not find the new proposals very imaginative. There is nothing new there. The agency will simply do the kind of work that the courts have unfortunately failed to do in the past. What new enforcement initiatives will there be to ensure more payments by fathers who at present absolve themselves of responsibility?

Mr. Newton: What is new about the proposals is not the detail of the powers but the fact that, for the first time, instead of having a wide variety of agencies—notably the courts and the Department of Social Security—doing different things in different ways, we shall have a single agency dedicated to the purpose and with the staff to do the job.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great strengths of his proposals is that they will allow consistency of treatment as between families? Does he accept that one of the factors that ensures that people obey the law is that they know clearly where they stand, and that he should therefore take every step to publicise the proposals so that people know where they stand in relation to their children?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give an example which is to be found in the White Paper or the supporting documents. In two cases that were apparently similar in terms of obligation and income, one father ended up paying £5 a week and another ended up paying £50 a week. That cannot be defended.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that Hackney has one of the largest number of single-parent families in the country, more than 17,000. They, in


common with millions of other women struggling to bring up children in poverty, will have been dismayed by the facetious way in which some Conservative Members treated this subject this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They would have expected the matter to have been treated more seriously by Conservative Members.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposal to dock women's benefit by 20 per cent. if they will not name the father will cause great fear to millions of woman? If a women's partner is violent or a drug abuser, she will feel that she must choose between her personal safety and losing a large slice of her tiny income.
Is the Minister aware that many people outside this place believe that, if the Government were seriously interested in helping single parents to struggle out of poverty, they would address training, subsidised child care and above all, a proper level of child benefit?

Mr. Newton: There are three points there. First, I must state that I detected no element of facetiousness in the responses from my hon. Friends or, indeed, in those made by Opposition Members during these exchanges.
Secondly, I have already said a fair amount about the 20 per cent. Millions of women cannot conceivably have anything to fear from the proposal, given that the great majority, as I have said, co-operate in any event with efforts to trace the father and collect maintenance.
Finally, with regard to training, when the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to consider the White Paper, she will see that we want to do what we can to ensure that training services are properly geared to the needs of lone parents, especially those who wish to return to the labour market. However, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is much better that these matters should be taken out of the courts, where there is vast delay and a great deal of trauma involved? Does he also agree that it is highly acceptable that this is, as he said, a platform for working towards independence for women, but most of all it will enable children of the first family to share in the father's prosperity in a way that they cannot at the moment? That is good for them and it is not bad for the father.

Mr. Newton: I hope that it will not be taken as facetious if I thank my hon. Friend and state that I can hardly believe my good fortune in having her praise heaped upon me twice in a week.

Mr. John Battle: May I ask the Secretary of State about a detail on the assessment of incomes? Is it not the case that the whole issue of housing costs is proving to be a quagmire for the Government because the phrase "reasonable housing costs" is used in the White Paper, yet in practice, the housing costs might be much higher? If housing costs constitute 30 per cent. of a low income, if that factor is not got right, the proposals might push families into greater poverty. What does the Minister assume to be "reasonable" housing costs?

Mr. Newton: They will all vary from case to case. The examples in the White Paper, which I hope are helpful in illustrating what is happening in the calculations,

necessarily had to choose ballpark figures. The whole point of using terms like "reasonable" in that context is that there will be circumstances, for example mainly in the southern parts of the country, where "reasonable" housing costs are higher than in other parts of the country because of the general cost of housing. We shall try to take account of that. We do not want to have a position in which someone can deliberately house himself extravagantly as a means of avoiding a maintenance bill.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcements this afternoon are very welcome? However, will he reassure the House that in the new spirit of co-operation within the European Community, there will be an ability to track down European Community fathers resident in this country and also people from this country resident elsewhere in the Community, so that the agency can execute its plans?

Mr. Newton: I certainly hope that, in the area covered by the proposals that I have announced this afternoon—in which I think that we are ahead of most of our Community partners—we shall benefit from the general improvement in European co-operation.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I broadly welcome the proposals. Not only is it absolutely right that absent fathers should make a contribution to their children's welfare; it is imperative that lone parents should be able to work to achieve their independence. However, I hope that the £15 disregard is only the first step, bearing in mind the current cost of child care.
I should like to press the Secretary of State further on the question of women possibly being intimidated, so that they will not reveal the name of their child's father. Can he tell us what stringent steps may be considered to prevent a father from carrying out such intimidation? It is important both to protect the woman and child, and to ensure that an artificial threat of violence is not used to enable a father to keep quiet and not be brought to the enforcing agency's attention.

Mr. Newton: On the latter question, the hon. Lady has given one good indication of why it would not be sensible for me to make the kind of sweeping statement for which I was asked earlier by certain hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches. It could easily provide—quite apart from the mother—the absent father with an opportunity to evade maintenance. The essential answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has reminded me—is that any threat or actual intimidation is a criminal offence, and a matter for the police.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as a welcome for his approach to the matter, there should be a general welcome in the country for the tone and language that he has used? He is dealing with sensitive matters affecting families under great stress, who are sometimes in great poverty. Will he also pass on to his colleagues who have helped to create this approach, and to staff in the courts and the DSS, the gratitude of 650 Members of Parliament for the work they do every week in coping with the financial needs of people who are often in considerable difficulty?

Mr. Newton: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a point that perhaps I should have


made—that, underlying these substantial proposals has been a huge effort not only by officials in my Department—although that has certainly been huge—hut by officials in a range of Departments across Whitehall. It has been a very effective collaborative effort, the results of which have, I believe, made it worth while.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks of this being a matter for the police, that some women experience enormous difficulty in obtaining injunctions and having them enforced? At the weekend, I was dealing with a lady in my constituency who has been repeatedly kicked about the head but cannot get her injunction enforced. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, if the majority of women co-operate in seeking maintenance, he insists on compulsion for the minority who may have good reason to resist?

Mr. Newton: I would almost turn round the hon. Lady's last point. The more that the great majority think it reasonable to co-operate—and, indeed, do co-operate—the less proper it is simply to allow others not to co-operate, without good reason. As for her earlier point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the problems of dealing with domestic violence are not exactly new, and certainly have not been precipitated by the White Paper. The Home Office issued a circular early in the year encouraging the police to take much more interest in such matters, because this is a long-running problem that needs firmer action.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the millions of caring parents who do take responsibility for their children, and who recognise that the hallmark of a responsible society is individual's taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Will my right hon. Friend consider a further suggestion, perhaps with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—the introduction of nursery vouchers for lone parents, who at present find that they are at a great disadvantage? They are having problems in getting their children educated before the age of five, and are thus handicapped in trying to find work.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note my hon. Friend's proposal. For my part, I believe that the right course is the one on which we have embarked—with better earnings disregards this month—which will be extended through the introduction of the maintenance disregard. That will improve the position of lone parents generally, and help them to meet work expenses—whether in the form of child-care costs or, for instance, travel costs.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as his proposals are contained in a booklet called "Children Come First", the reservations that have been drawn to his attention, by hon. Ladies in particular, are because of our concern about children and the caring parent, who invariably is the mother? Therefore, will he explain why he regards it as a clear obligation on caring parents who are in receipt of family credit or income support to have to use the services of the proposed agency, as they are invariably the most vulnerable sections within our society? What steps will be taken to observe the total confidentiality of all such parents who are obliged to use the agency service? They are women who are subjected to

domestic violence and to other threats. The confidentiality aspect must be dealt with in any legislation that is brought forward.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I said about the reason for thinking it right that those in receipt of benefits—whereas I said that the public can be seen to have an interest—should have to use the services of the agency. The hon. Lady may be labouring under a slight misapprehension in some respects. Many lone parents within the existing system much prefer the DSS to take over their maintenance orders, to do the work, and to go through the hassle of collecting maintenance than have to do it themselves. I see no reason why that role should not be enhanced rather than diminished under my proposals.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Making irresponsible fathers act responsibly towards the families whom they have created is entirely to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the House of the time scale within which the reforms will be implemented? Bearing in mind that the need to know the name of the father is an important point in the success of the reforms, will my right hon. Friend confirm the proportion of names that are obtained now easily, correctly and satisfactorily?

Mr. Newton: Of course, it is not always possible to get a name, but often indications can be given that will help a well-organised agency to trace the person in question. We hope that the formula will start to apply within the existing system—the courts and the DSS—some time in the early part of 1992 and that the agency will be up and running in the course of 1993. As I said, it will be some time—perhaps two to three years—before it will be able to take on all existing cases.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome this statement as underlining what should be axiomatic from the concept of fatherhood being for life—that the state, often unwittingly and with the best motives, has undermined traditional notions of parental responsibility in terms of access and support. Will my right hon. Friend go right to the heart of the matter and to what should be our primary concern, and explain how the statement benefits children?

Mr. Newton: It will benefit children, first, by ensuring that maintenance is paid when it is currently not being paid or that more adequate maintenance is paid. Secondly, it will remove a great deal—I have used the word "hassle" several times, and I shall use it again—of the hassle of confrontation between separating parents, to which the present system can give rise. Thirdly, and perhaps as important as anything else, the statement will help by providing the caring parent with a better basis on which to build her own independence and, therefore, that of the child.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Viggers.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is the third time from that side.

Mr. Speaker: I have called Mr. Viggers, but I must balance it up.

Mr. Peter Viggers: May I also welcome these thoughtful and sensitive proposals? All hon. Members know how often the sadness of separation is followed by the humiliation of the woman having to pursue the father


for money for herself and for the children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has done today is important? He has turned back an erosion of principles that has pervaded the past few decades during which there has been a growing feeling that the state is responsible for individuals. In fact, parents are responsible for their children, and they cannot walk away from their responsibility.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that we have gone some way towards re-establishing a principle that is accepted by everyone, which is that parents have a responsibility which cannot simply be cast aside.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What savings is the Secretary of State hoping to make in the third, fourth and fifth years? Why could not those savings be used to help the single-parent families who are living in considerable poverty in this country and some second families who are in acute hardship because of maintenance payments?

Mr. Newton: Very roughly, we think that, in the first couple of years, there will probably be additional expenditure of between £100 million and £150 million on setting up the agency and making the benefit improvements to which I have referred. Even allowing for that, there will then be a net benefits saving of more than £50 million in the third year, which will build up over a long period to a sum significantly greater than that.

Mr. Allen McKay: When it is devised, will the formula be sufficiently flexible to take into account, for example, a person being responsible for another person's poll tax; a person being responsible, in some cases, for school fees which are voluntary; and the fact that, if someone is living in a large house before the problems occur, a huge lump sum has been paid to the carer on separation? Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that, because of a second relationship, the carer may sometimes be well off when the father of the children is not?

Mr. Newton: I said earlier that some of these matters—including, for example, property settlements—will necessarily remain a matter for the courts. However, as far as possible, we shall seek to ensure that, where any modification of the maintenance arrangements flows from that, it is carried out according to clear and certain rules.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Secretary of State will realise that he has had two or perhaps two and a half cheers from Opposition Members about his statement. On at least three or four occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the agency will have enough staff to do the job, but he must be aware of the damning report which was published earlier this year by the National Audit Office, dealing with support for lone parents, which disclosed that the "liable relative" section staff of his Department have been cut by one third in the past eight years and that those are the very civil servants with the job of chasing up fathers to ensure that maintenance is paid. Where is the guarantee that the

agency will have sufficient staff to do the job and that there will not be any further cuts that will place a burden on lone parents?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about lone parents' ability to work'? I forewarned him of this at business questions last Thursday. Although the report has not yet been published, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, earlier this year, in the Public Accounts Committee his own chief civil servant said on no fewer than six occasions that the responsibility for the changes of policy which had, in effect, made it more difficult for lone parents to go out to work were all ministerial changes. They were not changes made by the Department; they were policy decisions. Where is the evidence in today's statement that the Government have learnt the lessons of the changes that they made when they removed child-care costs from income support—although they had been included in supplementary benefit—which would genuinely enable lone parents to get out into the labour market again?

Mr. Newton: Since there is no very good evidence that the supplementary benefit arrangements were widely understood or widely used, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Obviously, the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been reported to me and, equally obviously, I readily accept that changes in policy are matters for Ministers, not civil servants.
On staffing, I repeat the point that I have made once or twice already. Not the least gain from all this is that the staff involved in this area—the same is true of the staff who are involved with national insurance contributions and compliance in our offices—will now be part of a separate distinct agency, purpose-built for the one task. That will make it much less likely that, unlike in the past, insufficient priority will be given to that work in the future.

Mr. Michael Jack: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on responding to the wishes of the many single parents who wish to resume some form of work, and on the changes that he has made to the family credit arrangements? How many people will the changes benefit in terms of enabling them to come off income support? Finally, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that there is widespread uptake of the enhanced family credit arrangements?

Mr. Newton: As with family credit, under the present arrangements we shall try to bring the provisions to people's attention in every possible way. We have had a good deal of success. Give or take the uncertainties of behavourial effects, we estimate that between 50,000 and 75,000 lone parents will find it possible to move into work as a result of these proposals.

Dr. John Reid: Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are interested in primarily two issues relating to this matter, one of which is that absentee fathers should face their responsibility—there is no difference between us on that? The second concern—I put this matter to the Prime Minister in a question last Session—is: who will benefit—the Chancellor or the child? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Prime Minister that, she said that the benefit would go to the child and the mother? In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Treasury will gain from


this move from the third year onwards? Will he also confirm that single mothers who stay at home will not gain at all from these measures?

Mr. Newton: I am becoming increasingly resistant to the way in which Opposition Members talk about "the Treasury" as if it were somehow disembodied from all the people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about "the Treasury", he means the taxpayer.

Dr. Reid: No.

Mr. Newton: "The taxpayer" includes many families in which the parents are working to bring up their children, often on modest incomes. I see no reason why we should ignore their interests in all this.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents will welcome the fact that financial responsibility is being returned firmly to the childrens' parents? May I suggest that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues might consider broadening the use of the Child Support Agency in the long run into a number of other areas, such as housing? I have a number of violent husbands—[Laughter.]—who continue to occupy council houses, whose wives are either unable or unwilling—understandably—to pursue them through the courts. Many of those women and their children would benefit greatly if this arrangement were extended to housing.

Mr. Newton: In so far as financial payments for whatever purposes are concerned, it is clear that everything that I have announced today will contribute to easing the problems that concern my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is the daily reality of the Scottish courts that the issue of access is normally linked to aliment, and will he take account of that? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of the people who go to these lengths to avoid payment feel the greatest bitterness, and will he therefore accept the pleas made by hon. Members of all parties not to pressurise women into pursuing these people on pain of penalty? Finally, will the collection agency collect on behalf of women who are in work, as well as women who are on benefit, and if not, is not that a disincentive to going out to work?

Mr. Newton: The agency will be ready to collect on behalf of anybody who wishes to use it. When I said that using the agency would be a requirement for those on certain benefits, I also made it clear that parents in other cases who wished to use the agency would be free to do so. I do not accept the terminology used by the hon. Gentleman or words such as "pressurise". On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that, unless he is a little more forthcoming about what constitute "reasonable grounds", it will appear to Opposition Members that the agency's role will be more to save money than to give first consideration to the welfare of the child? Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed by the arguments made by hon. Members of all parties and by the fact that there is genuine concern that mothers who have separated from violent partners are the very people about whom we should he most concerned,

because they will be the most reluctant to give the name of their partner? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that point very much in mind?
Finally, what arrangements are being made to achieve reciprocal arrangements with other Governments? Many partners leave this country and go to other parts of the world, but, as far as I can tell, under these provisions it will be difficult for the agency to make a claim. What steps are the Government taking to make some reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall explore the possibilities on the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised. On his earlier point, I hope that it will be of some encouragement to him that the estimates that I have given include no estimated saving from the proposal for a possible 20 per cent. deduction. We do not expect it to have a massive saving effect. It is simply an appropriate provision to avoid unreasonable non-co-operation. I am reluctant to be drawn in the direction that the hon. Gentleman asks because it would all too easily provide any husband with an easy let-out. He would simply have to make a particular threat.

Mr. Speaker: I have now had an opportunity to send for the extract from Hansard. I find that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said:
Some of the children are yours.
That appears to be a reflection on me—[Laughter.]—but I take it to be a reflection on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). He subsequently said:
A remarkable allegation was made, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—all the more remarkable, I suspect, to my wife than to me—that I have sired illegitimate children. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.

Ms. Short: To the best of his knowledge. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: I now say to the hon. Lady that that was undoubtedly an unparliamentary allegation. I ask her to withdraw it so that we may get on.

Ms. Short: I dispute the words that you read out from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, as I have informed the Editor of Hansard. Therefore, as I did not utter the words, I am happy to withdraw them. For the record, several Conservative Members were saying, "Why shouldn't women name the man?" I was pointing to them as a series of men, not to any one of them. I was saying that the implication for men was that they might find themselves named in such circumstances. That was my point, and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) knows very well that I was not talking about him in particular.

Mr. Speaker: This just goes to show—it has taken rather a lot of time—that comments of that nature from a sedentary position do not help the House.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the altercation earlier, the words that you read out about my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow were not in dispute. The altercation between you and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was about an allegation against all Conservative Members. You requested a withdrawal, but none has been made. I ask you to press that point.

Mr. Speaker: The extract that I read from Hansard is what was actually said. I am prepared to accept that the remark has been withdrawn. We now move on——

Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One day the hon. Gentleman may find himself in this Chair but while I am here, will he please allow me to deal with the matter?

Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you wish to be fair to the House. Being fair to the House means being fair not only to the hon. Member for Ladywood but to all the men on this side of the House. You read out what you wanted to read out, as far as it went. But the rest of the allegation against Conservative Members was further on in Hansard. I am sure that you are aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I am not, because I have only one sheet from Hansard which has taken some time to be brought to me. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

Iraq (Reparations)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not in a spirit of posturing, but because some of us sincerely believe that precedence should be given to the subject, that I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 so that the House of Commons can discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Reparations in relation to Iraq.
The issue is definite in that it is being discussed this afternoon and this evening at the United Nations.
I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent and should take precedence. The House of Commons often shuts the stable door when the horse has bolted. If we are to have a feed-in, and to have any influence whatever on events which are absolutely central to our country, we really must discuss such matters before the event and not after it.
When the Prime Minister comes to make her statement tomorrow, it will be too late to discuss, first, reparations and secondly, dare I say it, the whole question of war crimes. Those issues were not properly discussed when the House of Commons was recalled for the emergency debate in September. The disgraceful truth is that many leading politicians have uttered statements on highly sensitive issues such as this, and the House has had no opportunity whatever to pass comment on them.
I believe that the matter is important, and that loose talk about reparations, let alone war crimes, makes the Iraqis more intransigent, the chances of a peaceful settlement less likely and, therefore, the hideous prospect of war more likely. That is why it is of overwhelming importance that General Norman Schwarzkopf was quoted this morning in the Daily Telegraph as saying:
War 'could he as bloody as Vietnam … it could last a long, long time and kill an awful lot of people."'
Derek Wellman from the Ex-Services Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament said in a letter to me:
Most of our own members saw active service in World War Two—some even in WWI—and we have been appalled by the cavalier attitude of most of the media to the idea of 'using force'. The impression given is almost that we would embark on something akin to a pub brawl rather than the obscenity of war.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is more important than dogs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. He made his point succinctly.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
United Nations policy in demanding reparations from Iraq.
I in no way underestimate the importance and significance of what the hon. Member put to the House hut, as he knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons. I also have to take into account whether the subject that he raised should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Craig Walsh

Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, so that we may discuss a specific, important and urgent matter, namely,
The death last Friday of Craig Walsh, aged 15, while in custody in Glen Parva young offenders institute near Leicester.
The matter is specific. Craig Walsh, aged 15, hanged himself while in custody. He faced a 30-month sentence for aggravated burglary. The matter is important. His death was not an isolated incident—36 young people aged under 18 have killed themselves in custody this year and 160 others have attempted suicide. There is something very wrong with the way in which we handle young offenders when so many like Craig find such bleakness, despair and lack of hope that they take their lives.
The matter is urgent because many other young people are in custody and many of them are at risk. Indeed, with Craig Walsh in Glen Parva was another young Stoke-on-Trent man who has already cut his wrists during his court case.
I know that the Home Secretary recognises the problem—he said that in recent evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs—but the matter is so important and so urgent that his concern is not enough. He must act now to ensure that, in this case, there is a full public investigation into the circumstances of this young man's death. Why was he sent to an institution such as Glen Parva? Did the court that sent him there have evidence before it making it clear that Craig was a potential suicide? Why was that young man not transferred to an institution for the treatment of young offenders, such as Glenthorne? Will the Home Secretary also set up a more general investigation into this national growing problem?
However serious the offence, as indeed Craig Walsh's was, locking up such people for 15 years is not the answer to their problems. If the Home Secretary acts now, some slight good might come out of this tragic and unnecessary death. If he does not, more young people will take their lives in custody before Christmas and still more will do so next year making a roll call of death and misery for which we, society, and the House, must, in some small part, take responsibility, and of which we should also be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The matters arising out of the suicide on Friday of Craig Walsh, aged 16, while in custody in Glen Parva prison".
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that his remarks will have been noted by the Minister of State, Home Office, who is on the Front Bench. I must rule, however, that the matter that he has raised does not fall within the requirements of Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Environmental Protection Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 173, 296, 299 and 436, 174 to 295, 297, 298 and 300 to 435.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I know that such motions usually go through without discussion, but a terribly important issue is involved. If the Minister allows the list of amendments to go forward as they stand, it will make a nonsense of parliamentary debate and of aspects of our democracy.
Amendment No. 296, which deals with dog registration, if debated today, as seems likely, will create a parliamentary mess and a mess for our legislators. That will happen unless we can also consider the alternative European proposals that I have just received from Brussels contained in document A3–156/90. Hon. Members should be aware of those proposals. The fact that most hon. Members are unaware of them demonstrates the importance of the issue involved.
Amendment No. 296 calls for a British plan of registration, but the Government's amendments place obligations instead on local councils. It will be utterly worthless to discuss those proposals if they are overturned within the next 18 months by the new European plan which we know is on the way.
I shall endeavour to make a simple case for my plea so that I can get the mesage across to those who might disagree. What on earth is the point of my dog. Corry, having a mark placed on his left ear if the Common Market introduces a law next year that says he should have a mark on his right ear? What is the point of having a mark tattooed on his leg because we think it is important in Parliament if, as seems likely, the EC proposes a number and a nationality mark?
We must face up to this situation, which is not unique—such things will continue to happen. If hon. Members doubt that, they should consider what happened as a result of all the long discussions we had on the Merchant Shipping Bill. Hon. Members will recall that we had a British quota of fish and that we passed a law to say that they should be fished by British ships. We thought that that was the law, but the European Court in a flash said that the law was dead, because in its view it was contrary to the treaty of Rome, and that Spanish ships should be allowed to fish as well.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Disgraceful.

Mr. Taylor: Whether it is disgraceful, correct or all about looking forward to Europe, there is no point in us carrying on with a constitutional nonsense.
What stage have the European plans reached? The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection decided by 24 votes to nil, with one exemption, a proposal for dog registration schemes to prepare dogs and cats for 1992 and free movement. That decision was approved on 8 June 1990 and it will be considered——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the motion before us. The motion deals purely with the order in which the Lords amendments should be taken. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Taylor: I am raising an extremely serious point. We must discuss the proposal, but why discuss amendment No. 296 today? That amendment should come at the end of our proceedings to enable hon. Members to obtain copies of the European document so that they are aware that we may well face another problem.
The European proposal was debated by the European Parliament on 19 November. From there it goes straight to the Commission, which is advised by the Parliament to prepare a directive. What is the point of hon. Members making up their minds on amendment No. 296 if they do not have a clue about what is in the other directive? Some people may say what does it matter and that we can take that into account in our debate. However, to say that the views of the European Parliament are as remote and as silly as the views contained in a motion passed by some rural women's institute is not true. Ministers and some Opposition Members have told us that the European Parliament has more teeth and more standing than that. We are aware of more than 100 amendments proposed by the European Parliament that have subsequently been accepted by the Commission.
What about the House rules? We should consider Standing Order No. 26, which deals with anticipation. It says that Mr. Speaker has the power to say that we should not discuss something today if we are going to discuss it soon.
Are there any inconsistencies between the British and European plans? I am afraid that they are huge. The European plan speaks of a tattoo mark on the animal's ear, another tattoo mark on a dog's thigh, a computer chip inserted in a dog's neck and a nationality certificate indicating the dog's or cat's nationality. [Laughter] This is a serious matter. How can we discuss amendment No. 296 today and go ahead with a British plan if, in a short time, we have a European plan which requires us to give every dog and cat in Britain a nationality certificate?
Another major problem arises over neutering. I know that Britain, by and large, has been neutral on the question of neutering, but the EEC proposals argue for a cheaper dog registration fee for neutered dogs. The idea is to try to encourage neutering.
The European plan would subsidise neutering and requires that every dog should have a national passport of a kind. No matter whether we think that that is good or bad, how can it be right for Parliament to discuss amendment No. 296 without the European information? This raises an important issue of principle. I am seeking to defend Parliament. Some of my colleagues and I are worried that we are being deliberately denied information.
On trade, for example, we know that we are shortly to have another discussion on European monetary union. What is Britain's trade with other countries? Until three months ago, we could ask that question and receive the information, but now the question is transferred to the Chancellor, who always says that one can find the information in the database. We cannot get that information.
We shall shortly be discussing agriculture and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it increasingly difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion before us. He must stick to that motion.

Mr. Taylor: Should we discuss amendment No. 296 today, without all the necessary information? If the House choose to do so, fair enough, but what on earth is the point of discussing a dog registration scheme today when the whole thing could be swept aside by a European proposal, the details of which are not available to most hon. Members?
If you think this does not matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should go to the Vote Office and say, "Can I please have a copy of the Euro-regulations?" Others have asked, but those regulations are not there.
This issue is fundamental to our democracy. Why on earth should we discuss amendment No. 296 when we cannot obtain the European plans? Unfortunately, this is not a new problem. I know that some hon. Members have made great play about food mountains. They should table a question on the Order Paper today and ask what is the current size of the food mountain. They will not receive the information because the Government have said that they will transfer it to the database.
If anything matters at all in the House, it is that hon. Members should be informed about issues that they are discussing. Some people say, "What the hell—what does it matter if we pass our British plans and then a Europlan is passed?" It matters that time is being taken up in the House of Commons debating something that could soon be overturned. We have already done that—the Merchant Shipping Bill is a clear example. I know that our splendid Transport Ministers put forward overwhelming arguments about why we should have that Bill. There was a great debate and we spent 18 hours on the subject, but then it was overturned by a Euro-decision.
I am desperately trying not to make a pro or anti speech—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I am trying to say that there is a new democratic position. What is the point of us trying to pretend that it does not exist? One sensible way, of which we might hear from an Opposition Member, is that we could always send all our legal proposals to Mr. Delors. I know that he is a busy man, so perhaps we could send them to his secretary. We could say, "Here is what we have in mind to discuss—will it contradict any of your Euro-plans?" That would be one way of avoiding our problem.
The 1992 plan for dogs and cats is totally different from what we are to discuss tonight. I am also thinking of animal welfare. What is the point of me having to have a British mark placed on my dog when it will have to have a Euro-mark, with its nationality on it, if the Europlan comes through?
Hon. Members may say that the Euro-plan is nuts. They may say that the proposal is good and the British plan is grand. They may say that the British plan is nuts. But why should hon. Members go ahead tonight and debate a proposal on dog registration that can be fundamentally overturned by a European decision?
We must wake up to this. Even though the Government do not want us to have the information and have taken effective steps to ensure that we do not, even though we cannot go to the Vote Office to get the Euro-document, which is a scandal, we should realise that we are living in a different world and playing a different ball game. The


Government must not waste our time. There are still some things that Parliament can do and talk about. We should talk about those matters with the help of information.
This is a serious issue, so I make the following appeal to the Government: if they care about democracy, do not want us to waste our time in the House talking about something that may be completely overturned by a Euro-decision and do not want to cause harm to animals, could they not say that they will not propose the motion, but instead table a manuscript amendment to put amendment No. 296 at the end of our debate so that it is the last one we discuss? What would the Government lose? They would lose nothing at all: the debate would still take place.
The only difference would be that, between today and tomorrow, all Members could get a copy of the report, which was passed by 24 votes to nil, and would have the information. In addition, a Minister should come and make a statement to say just how near the Government believe the Euro-proposal to be.
Therefore, I ask the Government, and the Chief Whip, who sometimes gives advice although he never speaks: what would he lost by putting amendment No. 296 at the end? We should not discuss amendment No. 296 now. Under my proposal, no one would lose. We would merely have the debate tomorrow, not today. Does anyone lose in any way? It will not curtail the debate—we would still have it—and it will not meant that other things will not be discussed. It is simply a tiny change to show that we care a little about democracy.
I am sure this will not happen because the Minister is a decent guy, but if by any chance we go ahead and discuss dog registration tonight without knowing about the Euro-plans, we will not only be making a nonsense of Parliament, but insulting our constituents and being unfair to the dogs that we allege we are trying to protect.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. McWilliam.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order, or does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak in the debate?

Mr. Cryer: On that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should make it clear that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was speaking to the motion and was not on a point of order. Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Cryer: I shall speak to the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely in favour——

Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that you called me to speak on the substantive motion. It would be deplorable if an hon. Member was allowed to barge in on a point of order.
It seems that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has a point. One of the problems that we shall come to later——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South was rising on a point of order, but it now appears that he wishes to contribute to the debate. I called the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) first, so he should speak first, and then I shall call the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not delay the House long, but the hon. Member for Southend, East has a real point. In the face of the Single European Act, under which the determination of the issue will not be a matter for majority, veto or the House—except in a secondary sense—it seems difficult to go on to debate an amendment which, if carried tonight, will entail considerable costs for local authorities when they are strapped for money. According to the hon. Member for Southend, East, that cost will be otiose and the money will be spent on things for which Europe is not asking and not spent on things for which Europe is asking.
It seemed that the hon. Member for Southend, East made a reasonable request and that we should at least delay the debate until tomorow when we have had time to see the document and make up our own minds about whether we are prepared to waste local government money in this way before we vote. I hope that the business managers of the House and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who moved the motion, will at least listen to the reason behind the motion, which is not pro or anti, but which tries to react to the realities that face us. It seems to be a fundamental point that in any debate in the House we should have in front of us all the relevant documentation. It is quite clear that we do not have that. I believe that the reasonable request of the hon. Member for Southend, East should be met.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) will realise that there was no attempt to intrude in the debate. On several occasions, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker said that the motion should be adhered to and the debate was going a little bit wide, so I thought I would begin on a point of order, but I am happy to speak on the motion.
The basis of the questioning of the motion is that amendment No. 296 should be deferred because of the dog registration scheme proposed in the Common Market Assembly. I believe, and have long believed, that the House should be prepared to stand up for its legislation and pass legislation on the basis that it applies in the United Kingdom. I believe that the Government should be prepared to resist any legislation emanating from the Commission because the Assembly is not a Parliament. It calls itself a Parliament, and until the Single European Act, the Government called it an Assembly, but the Government now claim that they will stand apart from the Common Market on the issue of monetary union, a common currency and a central bank.
The Government put through the Single European Act on a three-line Whip. That Single European Act changed the title of the assembly to Parliament, but the reality has not changed, which is that it is a consultative assembly with no legislative powers. It has been tarted up a bit since——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion, which


involves purely the order in which we should debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman must stick to that.

Mr. Cryer: The proposal was that a section of the business should be deferred to the end of our debate because of a report being produced by the EC Assembly. I am pointing out that that report does not at present have the position of legislation and so does not represent a clash with the Government's view. [Interruption.] However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is now a Euro-fanatic, murmured from a sedentary position, it will, which is the issue that I want to address because it is relevant to the motion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if this Euro legislation—which we detest—is passed, we shall have to buy dog collars in mark-dominated Euro currencies? Will it affect the royal corgis? We do not know where all this will end. My hon. Friend is right to say that the amendment should be moved to the end of the proposed order for debate.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has raised issues that are rather broad of the motion.
The EEC Assembly will discuss the report, which will then go to the Commission and the Council of Ministers—and this initiative was probably taken as a result of their attitude—and Commissioners appointed to £100,000 a year jobs plus tax-free expenses will produce a directive. It is at that stage that the Government can say, "Our legislation is adequate. We spent a great deal of money introducing it in the United Kingdom and we shall resist any suggestions from the EEC that the scheme should be altered."

Mr. Terry Dicks: Surely the whole point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the effect on the animals. What is the point of passing legislation today that will mean animals being pierced with lead, if we then have to undo the legislation because of a Europea directive?

Mr. Cryer: The Government should resist the EEC directive, and they well know that it is possible to do that. Indeed, it is possible to resist a directive for many years. The Government have ignored, delayed or resisted directives for more than 10 years. They implement some parts of directives by statutory instrument—the usual procedure—but leave other parts lying in desuetude. They are never brought into operation.
The Prime Minister wants to resist the Common Market onslaught for a common currency, a completely irresponsible central bank and all the rest of the paraphernalia of federalism that is being peddled around the Common Market. Are the Government supporting her attitude? The deputy Prime Minister appeared to be deliberately undermining her, in what I thought to be a disgraceful fashion, when he appeared on the Walden programme. It was a complete breach of Cabinet unity and collective responsibility——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying from the motion.

Mr. Cryer: I shall return to the narrow motion by giving way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We cannot resist the directive, although we can vote against it. However, as it is in preparation for 1992, it can be decided on a majority vote. The Common Market can and probably will pass directives laying down things that must happen to our dogs, such as the necessity for dog passports. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, whether we like it or not, if the EEC says that a dog must have a passport or a computer chip we must comply. Hon. Members should be aware of what is involved before we debate the issue tonight.

Mr. Cryer: One problem is that other member states apply EEC directives in a leisurely and selective manner to suit their circumstances. The Government have a new-found air of independence, and I suggest that they take the same attitude that they are taking towards a central bank and monetary union. Directives are pouring out of the Common Market. I am in favour of a dog registration scheme. The proposals that we shall debate later tonight are useful and important. Local authorities need some certainty, and the Government should not allow Parliament to be sabotaged by a collection of appointed Commissioners and through majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We must be prepared to retain the sovereignty of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Southend, East said that we cannot resist. It has always been an important negotiating weapon that Britain is prepared to say that we have a continuing right to withdraw from the Common Market and that we shall never forgo it. If we use that power, some of the Commissioners—who are, as Henry VIII described his barons, over-mighty subjects—will realise that we are serious. By all means, let us work with other countries, not only in Europe but throughout the world. The Opposition are international socialists and we look rather wider than the narrow confines of a handful of states in western Europe. We are not prepared to accept the dictates of the Commission.
I look forward to a Government statement that will help us to examine the business motion. We must be certain that our work in Parliament today will not be wasted in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is a tremendously important issue. Not many of us have the privilege of having in our possession documents from those who are our masters. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that Parliament should resist the directive and fight, but they are the masters——

Mr. Skinner: Who are?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The Common Market is the master. Once it lays down regulations——

Mr. Skinner: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that when those in the Common Market read his words, they will think that the Conservative party has caved in? People such as Leon Brittan will be laughing like a drain. The hon. Gentleman should understand that alliances and treaties


in Europe do not last for centuries. Some people think that alliances such as the Common Market go on for ever. They should read the history books——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) were to respond to that intervention, he would be out of order.

Mr. Skinner: Let me put it another way——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I shall not respond to the intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Every hon. Member should realise that, once something becomes Common Market law, if individual countries do not obey they can be taken to the judicial court and be forced to enforced the law. Those of us who are pro-Common Market by nature are trying to explain that if we surrender our rights, as we are being asked to do, we do not know where it will all end. Dog registration is a comparatively minor issue, but the principle is not.
The European Member of Parliament for Highlands and Islands—the Common Market calls her Mrs. Ewing because it is easier to remember—tabled a motion under rule 63 of the EEC's rules on procedure. As we might imagine, the ladies and gentlemen in Brussels refer to that document as (B9/0390/89), and for five pages they go on and on about dogs. We are meant to debate an amendment tonight for five, six or seven hours, and then to pass needless legislation. In due course, we shall be told what to do by our betters in the European bureaucracy. Does any hon. Member realise that the bureaucrats on the Commission intend to remove all barriers not just to trade—in which they constantly interfere—but to the free movement of dogs between member states?
I agree that the Common Market is a powerful institution, but why should it he allowed to decide what is good for our country? Why should it be allowed to determine when rabies has been extinguished in Europe or in the world? Is this country and this Parliament left with nothing to decide? Is the Common Market to decide what we do with our dogs and cats? Why should it be allowed to dictate to us in that way?

Mr. Dicks: Perhaps my hon. Friend is doing the Minister an injustice. Perhaps he will be able tell the House clearly that he has taken our points on board and that we will all have an opportunity to read the document. My hon. Friend should not be too unfair to the Minister, who I am sure will make the documents available, and will not make any statements tonight that could in any way impinge on the EEC directive.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us in the near future. None of us wants to be difficult or to stand in the way of progress, and nor do we want to stand in the way of this country, France, Germany or the other member states deciding the issue for themselves and how they shall treat their pets. Britain has managed perfectly well, generation after generation, to decide what is good for its dogs and cats.
I would have known nothing of all this had it not been for the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who has served as a bastion in defending British interests. I did not know that five pages of rubbish from the Common Market existed and

that they were to be the subject of a motion. Why should we waste our time if, whatever we decide tonight after hours of firm debate, and having listened to the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—whether or not we agree with them—we are then told that we must anyway abide by a directive?
We are used to Bills returning to this House from another place with a message that Her Majesty the Queen has acceded to them and commands our presence in attending to that law. But we may now expect to come through the door into this Chamber not the Queen's representative but Jacques Delors's representative, saying "By the way, this is what jolly Jacques says that you must do." If that is so, let us not waste time in debate, but instead all go and have a good dinner until we know what the Common Market wants. However, we may think it right to defend our country and our rights to decide matters affecting our cats and dogs, and not wait for Jacques Delors to come through the door.
Too many people in this House and in the country are willing to sell us out and to sell us short. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I shall have no part in it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made important points concerning the competence of the House and the availability of relevant documents that could inform our debate. When I was elected to the House in 1979, I thought of it as a sovereign House of Commons because it represented a sovereign people. However, we see increasingly that this House cannot make decisions. We may protest and pass Acts of Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East cited the case that demonstrated that this House is not competent on a whole range of issues. I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I have always understood that when Parliament passes a law, it gainsays those previously enacted. We now have a House of Lords that is dancing on the head of a pin trying to justify the supremacy of a preceding Act of Parliament, demonstrating that a 1972 Act of Parliament takes precedence over subsequent legislation.
Today, we are being asked to address ourselves to an issue in which none of us doubts the Common Market has competence. I know that the Government do not want: to pass legislation that conflicts with the views of the Community or the Commission. We went through the performance of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, when we tailored it to meet what we thought were the Commission's requirements and those of European law. As it happened, we found otherwise.
The most startling new development in our constitutional history is the Law Lords, in recognising where power lies—as they traditionally have done—trying to make judgments to accommodate the view of the European Court. That is increasingly happening.
Today, in an area in which the Community clearly has competence under the 1972 Act and under subsequent legislation, such as the Single European Act and that concerning majority voting, this House is having imposed upon it, through our own Law Lords, subordination to the European Court. The Government could avoid the dilemma by proceeding with their own reckonings and allowing the House time to consider the matters that are to come before it shortly.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in that respect, and if it comes to a vote, I shall certainly vote in favour of his proposition.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The purpose of the motion is to decide whether amendment No. 296 should be taken sooner rather than later. Hon. Members suggested that it should be taken today, and I personally hope that that will be the case. The House has not yet made up its mind whether it will accept the views of another place. The motions on the Order Paper make it clear that the Government seek to overturn the Lords amendment and to propose amendments in lieu of them.
I moved the motion because, were we fortunate enough to put the debate on the record, in Hansard, it would then at least be courteous to another place to consider the arguments that were advanced. If the amendments—I emphasise the word "if'—are overturned, what then would be the point of the ordering motion? I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and of other hon. Members, but they were referring to a proposal which has been debated in the European Parliament and gone no further than that. Were it to get any further, it would have to be considered by others, not least by the Council of Ministers. Whether or not I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, the outcome is a matter for conjecture or hypothesis and is not a matter of fact.
You may agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the views aired in this debate could have been aired when the question of dog licences was previously debated in this House. I have no doubt that hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a later stage.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Unusually, I support the Minister, and think that we should get on and vote. If it takes as long for the 11 other nations of the European Community to resolve a matter that it has already taken the British Parliament two years to resolve—I refer to the question whether we should introduce a dog registration scheme—the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) need have no worries. It may take a proportionately longer time—or at least 24 years—for the European Community to determine the matter. We have taken two years to reach the point of deciding on a logical replacement for the abolished sheep dog licence scheme. The sooner that we can get on and establish that replacement, the better. If we can establish one tonight and defeat the Government in the process, even better still.

Mr. Peter Fry: I am in a dilemma. My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government intend to overturn the amendments that have come from another place. We are entitled to know whether the Government want to overturn those amendments because they are against dog registration for ever. If the Government are saying only that they oppose such a measure but will have to accept it in accordance with the European guideline, that is a very different argument.
Those hon. Members who happen to take this matter seriously believe that we should not put ourselves in a ridiculous situation. I accept that, because of the Single European Act, the Government are in great difficulty. My

credentials are that I was one of 11 Conservative Members to vote against the Single European Act on Third Reading. This issue illustrates the sort of difficulty that the Government will get themselves into. Perhaps it might be better if my hon. Friend the Minister made his and the Government's position clear on registration. If he is suggesting to the House that the Lords amendment should be overruled, we shall expect him and the Government to fight hard against some of the extreme legislation that emanates from the European Parliament.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that I have always supported the principle of dog registration, and I shall do so in the Lobby tonight. Before we move on from this short debate, one allegation has been made which will clearly be picked up by the popular press if it is not refuted immediately and it will cause alarm. I should like to give way to my hon. Friend the Minister so that he can assure the House that under no circumstances would the Government agree to any European directive or legislation which would weaken our control against rabies. I look to my hon. Friend for an answer.

Mr. Trippier: I am certain that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Gale: I am most grateful.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am a firm opponent of dog registration. I take seriously the argument made about debating this matter when only three hon. Members on this side of the House have read what the European Community is suggesting. The Government's policy and my own on dog registration is that we think that registration is simply bureaucratic nonsense. However, the European Community is trying to say that it has serious problems with rabies and other infectious diseases in the rest of the European Community—in at least 10 of the other 11 nations. Therefore, it is asking for permanent identification on the animal to tie in with its inoculation records.
We cannot properly debate this issue when most hon. Members have not considered that part of the argument and therefore whether, in a few years' time, the European Community will say that it cannot allow our special regulations for keeping rabies out of Britain because we attempted to overturn its regulations for dealing with that disease; that is its regulations on the vaccination of dogs against rabies and allowing vaccinated dogs with identification marks into the United Kingdom.
Without seeing this document or understanding what the European Community is driving at, we do not have the necessary information to come to a proper decision.

Mr. Derek Conway: I am somewhat disappointed by some of my hon. Friends' arguments and I hope that they will take my hon. Friend the Minister's advice. Like one or two other hon. Members I, sadly, felt obliged to join the Opposition when they declined the invitation of the Patronage Secretary to vote for the Single European Act, precisely because of the majority vote that that Act provided. It staggers me to listen to a debate among my hon. Friends who also defied that three-line Whip to vote against the Act, but are now saying that we should postpone what we are doing until we find out what the Europeans are playing at. Surely that is contrary to what we are driving at. I hope that the House


will get on with the debate tonight and tomorrow, get it out of the way and not give a damn about what the European Parliament is doing. But if the Government are stupid enough to get themselves on the hook, in six or 12 months' time they will be wriggling and perhaps will not receive much support from Members on their own Benches.
The tenor of the debate—that we should stop what we are doing tonight to enable the Europeans to crack on with it——

Mr. Mc William: I am worried that local authorities will be required to spend money that they do not have. The legislation will be funded by the poll tax, which will be otiose because it will be overtaken by other legislation that we know is coming but, because the document is not available in the Vote Office, most hon. Members do not know exactly what is happening. It is important that we put this debate in context. The only way that we can do so is to read about what is intended and thus avoid spending money needlessly.

Mr. Conway: The hon. Gentleman is right to take these matters seriously. He and I have long experience of local government. I believe that many local councils are itching for an opportunity to bang up the poll tax and would probably use this measure as just another reason, so I cannot accept his arguments.
I hope that the House will reject this attempt by their unelected Lordships to impose yet another tax on our constituents. Some hon. Members who have spoken are quite wrong. The sooner that we get this measure through and put the views of the House on the record, and thus defy what overpaid and underworked Europeans are trying to do, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 173, 296, 299 and 436, 174 and 295, 297, 298 and 300 to 435.

Clause 1

PRELIMINARY.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2 line 13, after ("and") insert ("the air within")

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 4 to 6 and No. 285.

Mr. Trippier: The amendments in this group are drafting and technical amendments, and I am sure that the House will not wish me to dwell on them, although I shall be happy to answer any questions hon. Members may wish to ask. While on my feet, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her recent election to the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Fry: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions about the Lords amendments, which I understand were intended to tighten up the original

wording of the Bill. The reason for my questions is that these clauses have serious implications for certain aspects of British industry.
One of the great problems which often arises with such legislation is that clauses refer to regulations which may be drawn up by the Government. I am sure that the House is aware that regulations made long after the original legislation are often lightly debated in the early hours of the morning, and British industry wakes up to discover that a statutory instrument has been passed and it is not even aware of its significance.
For example, statutory instrument No. 1159, which was issued just before the summer recess last year, stated that any trade effluent discharges which raise the concentration of prescribed substances above background level meant that sector fell under integrated pollution control even if the presence of prescribed substances was occasional or intermittent. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members are aware that I act as a consultant to the British Leather Confederation which is very worried about the implications of these clauses and the regulations that will flow from them.
As I understand it, with the absence of any de minimis exemption, small companies with as few as a dozen workers could come under full integrated pollution control, with all the associated monitoring and registration costs.
My hon. Friend the Minister has always given a sympathetic hearing to the leather industry, and I remand him that that industry is now presented with real problems. For example, under the proposed regulations to which these clauses relate, the industry could find that, although a firm is not responsible for polluting a waterway, because skins were treated with some sort of insecticide, it could unknowingly affect the water supply and be prosecuted.
I therefore hope, that my hon. Friend will take note of the industry's very real anxieties and those of other related industries, and will give me an assurance that, when the regulations are drawn up, they will take the interests of British industry into account—especially the interests of many small firms, which could become hopelessly enmeshed in bureaucracy and might never be able to afford the measures needed to avoid prosecution under the Act when it becomes law.

Mr. Trippier: I am concerned about the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I have had the opportunity, which I valued, of meeting both my hon. Friend and representatives of the British Leather Confederation. The difficulty is that tanneries discharge an obnoxious substance that affects the water. It is included among the red list substances that are referred to in part I.
I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, the Government do not intend to introduce legislation that would result in these companies having their backs against the wall. We hope to reach an agreement with the industry. We want Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to sit down with representatives of the industry. I would not accept the introduction of such legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that assurance.
Secondly, the views of the British Leather Confederation and the Chemical Industries Association have been consistent throughout. They welcome the main thrust of what we are trying to achieve in part I: higher


standards for the control of emissions and for those polluting processes that affect the land, water and air. They also want the regulations to be fair. I have repeatedly given assurances about those matters to them.
The new regulations for the British Leather Confederation would not be introduced before 1996. I am giving small and medium sized companies a period of between three and five years after Royal Assent to comply with the new regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that we are concerned and that he will accept my assurance that we intend continually to review the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert ("(which in this Part means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951)")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11, 15, 21 to 23, 35 to 38, 41, 323 to 326 and 142.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Both Lords amendment No. 2 and the other Lords amendments are technical and consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 2

PRESCRIBED PROCESSES AND PRESCRIBED SUBSTANCES

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 19, at end insert
("and to which conditions as specified in directions in accordance with section 7(3A) below shall apply")

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree; Lords amendment No. 14 and amendments (a) to (d) thereto, and the Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Trippier: As the Opposition have tabled several amendments to Lords amendment No. 14, I fully respect their wish that there should be a debate on this issue, which involves the Valdez principle. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Opposition to open the debate so that I have to speak only once.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the Opposition with the opportunity to outline their case. If he listens to the debate, I hope that he will reconsider the Government's position on Lords amendment No. 14, which was added to the Bill in the other place after a constructive debate. Ministers in the other place did not answer the case put forward by our colleagues there.
If the Government insist on rejecting the Valdez principle, their rejection of it will be even further proof that they are not using the Bill to improve environmental protection and that they are continuing to waste the

opportunity that the legislation could provide. We have said all along that the title "Environmental Protection Bill" is very grand, but the contents of the Bill do not match its title.
The fact that the amendment is incorporated in part I, which deals with integrated pollution control, is significant. Integrated pollution control is a principle that the Opposition have supported throughout consideration of the Bill—in Committee, on report and in another place. The problem is that the Government have taken a good principle and implemented it in a second rate way. They have not laid down with sufficient clarity the principles on which authorisation should be based. They have never said that they are ambitious about implementing integrated pollution control. They refer to changing the structure of applications instead of to the imposition of new and progressively tighter controls on industry.
The Government's attitude led the Opposition in the other place to table the amendment that incorporates the Valdez principle. We are keen that that principle should remain part of the legislation. We want to take the matter further and use part I to establish an environmental protection agency to co-ordinate all the policy aspects that ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control and all other aspects of environmental protection.
I remind the House of the Valdez principle. It is strange that the Minister should seek to reject it. It is not only Labour politicians in this country who have put forward such an amendment. The Valdez principle was established in the first place by United States investors, for ethical reasons. That group of people will grow in number and influence. I hope that the principle that the group advocates—that companies should carry out environmental audits—will be taken on board by the Government. The Opposition regret that they have not yet done so.
According to the Valdez principle, certain other policy aspects ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control. The ones that are mentioned specifically in Lords amendment No. 14 are
"(a) The minimisation of pollution to environmental media;
(b) the protection of the biosphere;
(c) the development of the sustainable use of natural resources;
(d) the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste;
(e) the conservation of energy;
(f) the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and other persons;
(g) the adoption of voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale;
(h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation …
(i) the disclosure of adequate information …
(j) the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits".
I am at a loss to understand to which of those principles the Government can object. The principle to which the Government may object is that which involves energy conservation. When the matter was debated in Committee, we pressed the Government to a Division on incorporating energy conservation in the integrated pollution control conditions. The Secretary of State was present on that occasion but even he voted against it.
The Government's record on energy conservation is absolutely pathetic. The Government's White Paper states:


Energy efficiency is the cheapest and quickest way of combating the threat of global warming.
However, the same Government and the same Ministers have significantly cut the energy efficiency budget. They say that energy efficiency ought to improve in the future. In real terms, the energy efficiency budget was halved between 1986–87 and 1989–90. The real advances that could have been made on energy efficiency have not been made. That may be one reason why the Government object to the amendment.
Hon. Members received an interesting letter today from the CBI on the amendments that the Opposition have tabled and the inclusion of the Valdez principle in the Bill. The CBI seems to be panicking enormously about the prospects of including such measures as I have mentioned. The minimal brief that it sent shows that it does not seem to understand the implications of the amendment passed by the other place.
6 pm
The fact that the CBI sent that note to hon. Members asking them to reject the Valdez principle, and the fact that the Minister will ask us to reject it, shows that Ministers and industry have far too negative an attitude on environmental protection as simply a cost rather than an opportunity. It would be in the interests of industry to push it to have industrial environmental audits and energy efficiency programmes. The Minister knows that many problems could be alleviated if industry changed its attitude, and environmental audits are certainly one opportunity.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically unfair and is giving the House the impression that perhaps part I of the Bill was the idea of the Opposition. She cannot be allowed to get away with that, because it is perfectly clear that part I, which we put together and which, admittedly, was amended from time to time by the Opposition, is intended to raise standards of pollution control. It was entirely the idea of the Government and it is entirely to our credit that the legislation is before the House. It certainly will not be easy for industry to comply with the new regulations. Is the hon. Lady trying to deny that?

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is mistaken. I did not claim credit for the ideas behind the Bill. We can claim credit for trying to widen the implementation of IPC to ensure that industry takes on board all the needs of environmental protection rather than the narrow definition that the Government are giving it. If the Government persist in trying to implement IPC in this limited way, they will not be serving the best interests of industry. If they continue to say to industry, "All environmental protection is a great cost, and that is the end of the story," we shall not get industry to move in the direction that we want. If British industry does not take on board environmental considerations, it will be left behind because industries and companies elsewhere are becoming the leaders in many areas of clean technology. If the Government continue to send out the wrong messages, we shall slip further behind, instensifying the economic problems that we face.
I am sorry that the Minister persisted in insisting that there should be a negative approach to those problems. The concept behind IPC is an integrated approach to pollution control. Where better than the Bill, therefore, to introduce all the other considerations that I have

mentioned, from energy conservation to environmental auditing? If the Minister persists in talking down industry and talking about the problems of environmental legislation rather than the opportunities, he will not be doing industry any favours, and he certainly will not be doing the environment any favours.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her election. I hope that it is a sign that I, too, will benefit from having responsibility for this subject. When she left the House temporarily, I inherited her office. It may therefore be a good place to do one's apprenticeship on the way up the environment-political ladder.
The Lords amendment was sponsored jointly in the other place by the Labour party and Liberal Democrats, and my noble friend Lord Ross spoke in support of it for my party. I do not therefore need to elaborate on the view that we hold—that it is entirely appropriate to set out the specific principles for defining integrated pollution control.
The list, which has come to be known as the Valdez principles, sets out directions that the Secretary of State should give when permission or authorisation is sought. As the Minister will readily concede, the directions are general and cover subject matters rather than specific requirements. For example, they relate to the requirement that the conditions develop
the sustainable use of natural resources".
I should have thought that he would happily welcome that principle. They require that the consequences of the conditions are
the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste.
I should have thought that that was entirely acceptable.
I am aware, for example, that if waste disposal were environmentally best achieved by incineration, the consumption of energy would be higher than if another method of waste disposal were used. In absolute terms, therefore, one could not say that that method was the most energy efficient. That, however, is not inconsistent with the principle, in as much as it can be achieved, of "the conservation of energy", as set out in paragraph (e) of Lords amendment No. 14.
I join the hon. Member for Dewsbury in saying that the CBI's fears, which are set out briefly, appear to relate to a misunderstanding of the principles of Lords amendment No. 14. The CBI asked the House to reject the amendment for three main reasons: that the principles impose on industry
absolute liability for damage, compulsory environmental audits and total disclosure of information.
The proposal on absolute liability for damage is that there should be an undertaking of adequate—I underline "adequate"—provision for compensation for damage
caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products.
It is an entirely proper principle that somebody who pollutes is required to pay adequate compensation.
The proposal on compulsory environmental audits reads:
the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted.
I should have thought that the CBI would welcome that. It should be built into the practice of industry and business that it periodically assesses, audits and monitors the effectiveness of its work. I do not see that Government or industry could have any objection to that. Yes, it may cost


more, but the price of the environment is worth paying, and Parliament should be saying to industry and individuals, "You should pay it."
The principle on total disclosure of information—I remind the House that the amendment received sufficient support in the other place for it to have been passed only a couple of weeks ago—is that there should be
the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on matters relevant to the environment and health and safety".
That is not total disclosure of information, but adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on relevant matters.
Other provisions in the Bill protect proper confidentiality, and we shall debate amendments on that in a few minutes. I do not think that the CBI is right to say that, if the Lords amendment is passed, it would detract from the need to bring integrated pollution control into operation as smoothly and quickly as possible. The fact that there has not been enormous consultation on the principles is a less strong point because, first, there is international precedent for the desirability of the principles being incorporated into enabling legislation and, secondly, because the principles are consistent with an enabling part of the Bill. I ask the Minister to say that they do not tie his hands.
The amendments deal with the Labour party's proposal for an environmental protection agency. The hon. Member for Dewsbury may have read our document, which was produced this autumn a little before her document, and even before the Government's, and was entitled "What Price Our Planet?" In it, we reiterated the view, which my colleagues have enunciated for several years, that we support the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency. My only reason for not adding my name and those of others to the Labour amendment is that that would have been unfair to the hon. Lady and her colleagues. The details in one Labour amendment about the agency's functions are slightly different from ours. Given that the amendment was on the amendment paper, I thought that it was a sufficient peg on which to hang our support for the principle, without being tied to every word of the Labour party's proposal.
We think that there should be a Department of Environmental Protection, which would take some of the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry and even the Foreign and Commonwealth Office where it deals with international environmental issues. We believe that there should be an environmental protection agency, bringing together the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and of the National Rivers Authority, funded by but independent of the Government and backed up by a national environmental information law centre.
I want to give one example showing why such a system would be important, and today is an appropriate day to do so. As we all know, the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here because he is in Luxembourg at the meeting of European Community Environment Ministers before he goes on to Geneva and the world conference on climate change. The most controversial item on today's agenda is the limit to be set on CO2 emissions. The Government have made clear their policy. They believe that we should seek to achieve a limit at present levels by the year

2005. As we all know, their reason is that there will then be more emissions and first a subsequent reduction, so in 15 years we shall only be back to where we are now.
The Labour party argues that this level could be achieved by the year 2000 and prays in aid other countries that have achieved that. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats argued for a better principle, for a tougher target. We argue—this is not unsupported by precedent elsewhere—that there should be a 30 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions by the year 2005, a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2015 and a 55 per cent. cut by the year 2050. We believe that that is achievable by a range of policies—taxing pollution, energy efficiency, renewable technology, more public transport and less private transport and a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. The Minister is unwilling to accept that as a target—indeed, he would give the Secretary of State a bit of trouble if he did so, given that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade the European Community differently in Luxembourg.
The benefit of having an independent environmental protection agency is that we would have a body that could say with authority to whichever party was in government, "We believe that this is the best advice." If an environmental protection agency existed now, it would find that the Government's environmental policy was inadequate. I may be wrong, but that is suggested by the evidence.
The argument for an independent agency of Government to advise the Government on environmental protection has never been stronger. I hope that the time will come when the Government accept that all environmental wisdom does not lie with them. We have never believed that it lies with politicians and, increasingly, politicians are aware that their views have been behind those of experts. I hope that even if the Minister does not accept the amendment for an environmental protection agency, he will say that the Government have not rejected the idea. The hon. Gentleman would find such a body a helpful ally, certainly for the environment.

Mr. Robert Adley: Listening to the claims and counter-claims of the Labour party and the Liberal party one could be forgiven for forgetting that it was the incoming Conservative Government in 1970 who first established a Department of the Environment and the present Government who have brought forward this large Bill—the first serious attempt to deal with a range of environmental problems. [Interruption.] The interventions from the Labour Front Bench remind me that the 1974 Labour Government took public transport away from the overall responsibility of the Department of the Environment and we have been regretting the consequences for many years.
Clause 2 refers to "Prescribed processes and prescribed substances". The one prescribed substance which, sadly, is eliminated from consideration under the clause is carbon monoxide emitted by the internal combustion engine. I hope that that omission will be rectified in future legislation.
I am conscious of the fact that one or two of my colleagues may not agree with me about pollution emanating from aircraft, but aviation fuel, particularly aviation exhaust, is an increasing problem in small pockets of the countryside around airports. I hope that, in due


course, whether under the aegis of an environmental protection agency or through another organisation, transport matters will be brought back under the general heading of the environment and that, sooner or later, some Government will bite the bullet and include emissions from the internal combustion engine and from aircraft in the term "prescribed substance".

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Lords amendment No. 14 deals with the Valdez principles. I do not understand why the Government object to these nine or 10 principles which are to be incorporated as conditions to be considered in the granting of licences. They are all reasonable targets for all industries, obliging them to minimise pollution and waste, to protect the biosphere, to conserve energy, to conduct periodic environmental audits and so on. These principles are at the heart of the Bill. Without them, what is the Bill about?
Our amendment deals with setting up an environmental protection agency. In many environmental issues, Britain is 10 years behind Germany, Sweden, the United States and so on. Through the EPA, the functions carried out by the NRA, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Nature Conservancy Council and the environmental work of local authorities would all come under one umbrella organisation.
The National Rivers Authority involves the right kind of regional infrastructure and could provide the basis for such a powerful environmental organisation. Working independently of the Government, the body would monitor the environment, conduct research, advise the Government on new legislation and enforce existing legislation. It is a disappointing fact that, although the NRA is a powerful body in many respects, the enforcement of its work in connection with river pollution is not nearly strong enough.
Meanwhile, the pollution inspectorate is plagued by all sorts of problems. For example, it is in charge of air pollution, in respect of which there have been only nine prosecutions in the past 10 years. Those figures speak for themselves and clearly illustrate the limited extent to which the relevant provisions are enforced. An environmental protection agency responsible for enforcement is therefore desperately needed.
Amendment (b) calls for the creation of a Minister for Environmental Protection. At the moment, the full range of responsibilities falls to the Department of the Environment, which also has to deal with the community charge, housing, local government finance and so on. The Department has far too many responsibilities and they are too disparate for one Secretary of State to deal with them. The establishment of such a post would constitute a recognition of the importance of green issues and the environment. A Minister for Environmental Protection should take over some of the responsibilities of the Departments of Energy, Transport and Industry and especially of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill. Having served on the Committee, and having been involved at various stages in the consideration of the Bill, I believe that at present it is a weak Bill. When one considers that the Government have been in power for 10 years and that this is their first major Bill dealing with the environment, it is remarkably weak. For example, it involves hardly any financial commitment, although we

know that the problem of acid rain will take billions of pounds to tackle, as will the problems of sewage and our beaches. The curbing of the greenhouse effect through energy efficiency measures will also require billions of pounds worth of investment.
Instead of tackling those major problems, the Bill deals mainly with peripheral issues. The Opposition acknowledge that, under parts I and II, structures are being set up for integrated pollution control and the better regulation of toxic waste, but nevertheless believe that the amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I should like my hon. Friend the Minister seriously to consider the Opposition's two main proposals. The Valdez principles are important principles and important policy objectives, and I should like the Government to endorse them as acceptable principles and objectives to follow. Whether they are proper subject matter to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and whether they are capable of enforcement, is an entirely different matter. Personally, I do not believe that, if we state them in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, we shall be doing anything more than state a series of platitudes. We shall diminish their importance if we list them as proposed, because they cannot be made effective in terms of legislation. Nevertheless, I repeat that I should like my hon. Friend to confirm that the Government endorse those objectives and would like them to inform our view of the problems of the environment and environmental pollution.
The amendment would also require the establishment of an environmental protection agency. I do not think that I need say a great deal about that on this occasion. I have spoken about it extensively and I have also written about it. The House will know that, in its toxic waste report, the Select Committee on the Environment put forward the concept—before it became part of the policy of any of the political parties. I support such a concept because. at present, the way in which we deal with environmental monitoring, auditing, regulation and control is far too fragmented and leaves a great deal to be desired.
Having said that, I agree that we cannot rush the establishment of an environmental protection agency through at the tail end of our proceedings on this Bill, as the Opposition propose. I should like the Minister to tell us that the Government do not dismiss out of hand the establishment of such an agency, that the Department will continue to work out the details of how the matter can best be legislated for and that, eventually, we will introduce legislation that will establish a proper agency of the kind envisaged by the Select Committee.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Are the Valdez principles merely platitudes, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) suggested, or are they practical guidelines that should govern our conduct towards the environment? That is the question before the Minister, and I hope that he will respond in detail on the Government's attitude. If the Government reject the principles as laid down in detail in the amendment, we should be told, why they are doing so and, what they propose to put in their place. How will the good will expressed on both sides of the House be turned into practical measures? The amendments deserve a detailed


response from the Government, because they provide both a theoretical and a practical basis for tackling environmental problems in the long term.
The amendments are intended to probe the seriousness of the Government's commitment to genuine environmental improvement on a practical basis and founded on internationally agreed general principles. In implementing the Valdez principles, the Government would be following what is now becoming accepted international practice. If they reject them, they will be stepping out of line, and I should like to know why. The Valdez principles are internationally agreed and accepted, and the amendments are merely an attempt to integrate United Kingdom practice in that international context.
The principles relate directly to industry and industrial practice and attempt to integrate them into good environmental systems and practices. I doubt whether many people in this country would object to the protection of the biosphere or the sustainable use of natural resources or the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste or the wise use of energy. I doubt whether they would object to environmental risk reduction or the marketing of safe products and services or to damage compensation—that is very much of live issue—or to the disclosure of incidents or to the appointment of an environmental director. That should become the industrial norm, as should environmental assessment and annual audits in industry.
In a practical way, the amendments would bring industry into consideration and allow it positively to contribute to an improved environment. I hope that increasingly, environmental or compliance auditing will become standard practice in industry and that it will be accepted as a natural and important part of business practice.
The amendments are a taste of the future. Sooner or later, they will be accepted, out of common sense and fairness towards the environment. I hope that they will be accepted sooner rather than later, and that that is what the Minister will say in his response.

Mr. Keith Mans: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would consider these matters in relation to the publication of the White Paper on the environment, and the agency was, indeed, mentioned in the White Paper.
Another matter that is relevant to the amendments is the experience that we have now gained in relation to the National Rivers Authority—in many ways, the first stage in the creation of an environmental protection agency. In that respect, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said: we must not do everything too quickly.
We have now had some experience of the NRA, and we can see how it is operating. I do not fully agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who referred to the NRA's weakness. Over the past few months, the opposite has been the case. There have been a number of prosecutions, most notably against various oil companies in the north-west, which have proved highly effective and have acted as a good discipline against those worst polluters of the environment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that the first prosecution took place on the very day that the authority came into operation? It was certainly quick off the mark.

Mr. Mans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That proves that the NRA is effective.
We should not stand still. We should move quickly towards the creation of a fully fledged EPA to cover subjects other than water pollution. We are already entering slightly dangerous territory in which there is a demarcation dispute between HMIP matters and NRA matters. We must progress towards a situation in which we have a fully fledged Environmental Protection Agency which is separate from the Government. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need to remove some of the expertise from local and national Government and place it in an environmental protection agency.
Unless we make progress relatively quickly, we will be duplicating a lot of work on the environment. There will be little departments at district and county level and also within the Department of the Environment dealing with exactly the same matters which one EPA could deal with. With a lack of environmental expertise in the first place, there is a danger that we might spread that expertise too thinly. We might not achieve a firm view of the policy that we should adopt in this country towards the different aspects of pollution control, which must increase in importance in future.

Mr. Trippier: I was quite amused by the reference by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to his temporary location in the office that was formerly occupied by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). A wonderful thought flashed through my mind: if it is as lucky for him as it has been for her, he might find himself in a shadow Cabinet. My next thought was that he is already in a shadow Cabinet. It may not be a very big shadow Cabinet, but he must be a member of one. In fact, I suppose all the Liberal Members must be members of such a Cabinet.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Not quite all.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman must enlighten me further about that important issue later.
If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were to be a member of the Cabinet of Her Majesty's Government, in the unlikely event of the Liberal party ever taking office, it is safe for me to say from the Dispatch Box that the hon. Gentleman can say any darn thing he likes about pollution control target dates for CO, emissions, because they are unlikely to be delivered. Although I hugely enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's catalogue of proposals about how the Liberal party would introduce stabilisation and then the reduction of CO, levels, he should have included the proposals incorporated in the alternative White Paper put forward by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
The Labour party's alternative White Paper refers to stabilisation by the year 2000. At present CO2 levels, all the research, particularly that undertaken by the Department of Energy, shows that it will be impossible for that to be achieved unless there were nil economic growth


—no Opposition Member mentioned that—and half the coal mines were closed. How on earth the Labour party can square that with Arthur Scargill's National Union of Mineworkers stretches credulity to breaking point, but it might be hugely amusing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I assume that the Minister, like the Secretary of State, has seen our alternative to the Government's White Paper, which we published in September. The Minister must not ask me to defend the Labour party's fossil fuel policy, which I believe prevents the circle from being squared with regard to stabilisation by the year 2000. The Minister will be aware from reports in the press today and over the weekend that the target of stabilisation by the year 2000 is easily achievable, because the Government's advice that there would be a great expansion of CO2 emissions by the year 2005 is inaccurate. The projection was an overestimate.
Therefore, the Labour party target is not difficult, although we believe that it is inadequate. The Minister should reconsider. I would not be content with resting on the laurels of the Labour party as a sufficient backstop as a second choice for the Government's policy.

Mr. Trippier: I would not rest on the laurels of the Labour party, and I do not want to be taken down this side street. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want knowingly to mislead the House. With regard to his earlier comments about the presence in Luxembourg of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, no hon. Member should assume that any member state has made the target level as categorically clear as this Government have. That is disquietening. When I attended Council of Ministers meetings in Europe recently, I found to my horror that people are saying what they think they might be able to achieve, but are not prepared to sign up to that while others say that there is an aim or a target, but no commitment. The difference is that we have a clear commitment. When this Government sign any document, we deliver. We are respected for doing that, and I wish that that applied to many other countries.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Not about dumping in the North sea.

Mr. Trippier: I do not know about that, but I look forward to debating the matter tomorrow.
There is not much between the Opposition and the Government on how tough integrated pollution control should be. The measures enshrined in part I of the Bill were taken from recommendations made by the Royal Commission on environmental protection, which have been applauded and welcomed.
The only question that arises is: how tough should those measures be? Although I was interested to hear Opposition Members say that they should be tougher or very tough, I wonder whether they have squared that view with some of their trade union colleagues or those sponsored by them who might have something different to say if it meant that, in the rush to achieve the much higher standards enshrined in the legislation, thousands of people were to be laid off work. That is the difficulty which the Government must address. We have struck a balance between economic development and environmental enhancement. I am entirely content with that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: With regard to jobs, the future and the future of industry, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who said over the weekend:
British business has been losing opportunities in European markets by failing to take a lead on the environment"?
Surely the Secretary of State is acknowledging that jobs can follow environmental protection.

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. In trying to achieve the balance between economic development and environmental enhancement, many opportunities arise as a result of our being the pathfinders and trail blazers within Europe on integrated pollution control. If anyone doubts that, I can state that we have been asked to send a secondee from the Department of the Environment to Europe to help put together a European directive with which we can easily comply, but which many other countries will have to run very quickly to keep abreast of.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Indeed, we lead the world on water consultancy, and a great deal of business can be done on that, not least in central and eastern Europe now that those areas have been emancipated.
We have debated this issue several times in the past in Standing Committee; however, I must address the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members—not least ray hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—with regard to the structural alterations affecting Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. From what was said in the White Paper, it must now be clear that we did not consider the time right to think of further major structural changes to the system, such as the amalgamiation of the existing regulatory bodies.
The National Rivers Authority has been in existence for a year; Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not existed for much longer, and recieves considerable new functions in the Bill. There has been a period of dramatic change. However, we were careful to make it clear in the White Paper that, although the Government have concluded that the case is insufficient
to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at just the time when the new organisations are getting into their stride",
we certainly had it in mind to move towards establishing a regulatory body on the lines of the environmental protection agency at some stage. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who addressed the same issue.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister consider that that would require legislation?

Mr. Trippier: I think that it would require legislation. At this stage, it is not clear to anyone—least of all the hon. Gentleman and me—whether the new regulatory body should have, for example, a waste-regulation function. Such matters must be addressed. The commitment that I—along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—have given constantly, on the Floor of the House and outside, that HMIP will have the necessary resources to do the job is the most important undertaking that I can repeat in this debate.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury that I find, what has happened to the EPA in America very interesting. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) constantly refers to the EPA; he did so in Committee as well, and I understand why. The EPA,


which is completely separated from the federal system in the United States, has now been brought back into the federal system, and its administrator Bill Reilley has been appointed as a Cabinet Minister—at least, I hope that his position will be confirmed shortly, as I have the highest regard for him.
I wonder how that appointment would be viewed in this country. The hon. Member for Carmarthen—and perhaps even I—might view it as a case of someone being bought off if it had happened in the United Kingdom. My point, however, is that the EPA has now been brought back into the main stream of Government; my hon. Friends who sit on the distinguished Select Comittee know that to be the case. I would not always pray in aid the EPA in the United States; I think that we must look to something rather different.
I can understand why Lords amendments Nos. 3, 13 and 14 were accepted in the other place. The main amendment that we are addressing here sets out a number of principles concerning the Valdez principles, which on the face of it are as unexceptionable as motherhood and apple pie. However, the question is whether it is appropriate to enshrine them in legislation aimed at a system of pollution control.
Lords amendment No. 14 gives effect to nine out of 10 of what have become known as the Valdez principles, which were prepared after the Exxon Valdez oil spill of April 1989. One might think, so far so good; however, putting the principles into legislation goes against the founding aims of those who prepared them. The aim of the group that prepared the principles was
to create a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment for future generations.
In America, it is recognised by the most environmentally responsible individuals, companies and institutions that the Valdez principles en bloc are not feasible—as they stand—for companies. When the principles were discussed in the United Kingdom at a seminar arranged by the Green Alliance, members of environmental and other voluntary groups and the ethical investment community, it was agreed that the implications of the advent of the single market, proposals for eco-labelling, developments in public access to environmental information and the development of environmental auditing in the United Kingdom, all needed to be explored, as they would affect the applicability of the Valdez approach in the United Kingdom. In other words, environmental groups in the United Kingdom would not agree that the Valdez principles should be imported lock, stock and barrel as a United Kingdom policy objective, let alone enshrined in legislation. So much for the overview.
How does the main amendment in this group affect the systems of integrated pollution control and air pollution control? I believe that they are confusing, contradictory and incongruous; in short, the amendment is an almighty spanner in the sophisticated works of the two pollution control systems established in this part of the Bill. Let us examine each of the "sub-headings" of clause 7(4)(a) in turn. There is nothing wrong with paragraph (a), which concerns the minimisation of pollution as a general statement of intent, except that it does not belong here.
We have already provided for something much more specific in the Bill: clause 7(2) states:

the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be used",
not to minimise pollution of the environment, but to prevent releases of specific substances to the environment. Only if releases cannot be prevented will they be minimised. In all cases, BATN EEC—best available technique not entailing extra cost—must be used to render all releases harmless. That is not good enough.
6.45 pm
Let us look at another "sub-heading". The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) specifically asked me to address what was wrong with the Valdez principles. The principles state that we will
make sustainable use of renewable natural resources.
The amendment that I have been talking about goes further: it would require an operator of a process to develop the sustainable use of natural resources. I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I do not know what that means, and I think that most hon. Members would have enormous difficulty in defining it.
I am not being in any way clever, but let us pose some questions. Does it mean that a timber treatment plant operator would have to cultivate his own forest, or that a chemical operator would have to conduct research into wildlife habitats? The amendment is nonsense—and I could go on down the list. Its implementation would become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Rather than go on down the list, I must address a point made by at least two Opposition Members concerning the green audit, including the hon. Members for Angus, East and for Southwark and Bermondsey. It was the point to which the noble Lord McIntosh addressed a number of his remarks in the upper House when introducing the amendment that we are considering.
Environmental auditing as a principle is good. The United Kingdom environmental groups accept and support it, as I do myself. For heaven's sake, we have spent a great deal of time and a number of pages in the White Paper making clear what we believe about environmental auditing. I am delighted to say that this is a movement that is growing rapidly. The hon. Member for Angus, East said as much, and we should all welcome it. However, we stop short of making it mandatory. We do not regard it as helpful for the Government to be prescriptive about when or how techniques should be used.
The development of environmental audits is most assured if individual companies are encouraged to adapt the techniquies best suited to their particular circumstances. The voluntary nature of the techniques, as it has been developed by business, has encouraged a positive, objective and self-critical approach. That technique is still developing, and I do not wish to see it stop at industry; I want to see it developed throughout local authorities, and I think that I would carry the whole House with me on that point.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the strictures of the official Opposition, or indeed, members of the Liberal party. I must end, however, by completely rejecting the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. He suggested that the Government's record on environmental protection or enhancement was bad; in fact, it is outstandingly good—and compared to that of the Labour party, it exceeds all expectations. The last time that a Labour Government were in power—and that is difficult to remember—they did not even introduce part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974: what a disgrace.
Now the Labour party is talking about renationalising the water industry, which frankly it cannot afford to do. It cannot possibly afford to replace the £28 billion programme that has been made available only because of privatisation. It sickens me to my back teeth that, when they were last in power, Labour Members constantly cut support to water authorities, even when they were nationalised. No one believes that Labour is the party of the environment. Labour Members would have to look to all my colleagues as those who believe in environmental enhancement and an improvement in the quality of life.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments and Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments, agreed to.

Clause 22

EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 23, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) A determination under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the application and if the enforcing authority fails to make a determination within that period it shall be treated as having determined that the information is commercially confidential.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.[Mr. Trippier.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 40.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The key task in this exercise appears to be to keep one's eye on the amendment paper and to make sure that a crucial moment is not missed.
The amendments relate to the consequence for confidentiality of a determination under clause 22. Amendment No. 39 would add an implication that, if no determination had been made about a matter of confidentiality within 14 days, the information would automatically fall to be treated as confidential.
The logic of that is to make local authorities hurry up to determine whether something should be confidential. Does the Minister agree that 14 days is a tight deadline and, as he will appreciate in a local authority's cycle, often too tight a deadline? What will be the consequences if a local authority cannot meet a deadline? The best parallel that I can think of on the hoof is the allowed period in which to determine a planning application. If it is not determined by a deadline, it automatically goes to appeal for non-determination. Local authorities will often not be able to make a determination, or will not do so, and the consequence is that something will be held to be private when it should be public. If local authority staff are either incompetent or do not deal with the matter, or if they try to deal with it inadequately, we may end up with the wrong decision. That makes for bad law.
We should consider giving a longer time to local authorities so that the best principles of open local government are applied and we do not make confidential what should not be confidential. On environmental matters, the principle should be the availability of the maximum information possible. I am troubled that it is an

over-restrictive timetable and that it will result either in wrong decisions or in secret conclusions. Has the Minister a comment in response?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman would be right if we had left the Bill in that way. Amendment No. 40 in particular deals with his concern. A variety of suggested times was trailed in Standing Committee. We discussed who will say whether the time is adequate. From memory, 14 days was just about in the middle. We thought that it was adequate. If we are wrong and the hon. Gentleman turns out to be right, amendment No. 40 enables that time scale to be altered by order. That is fair enough. It enables the hon. Gentleman's point to be met, and his concern can now be abated.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 30

AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PART

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 29, line 1, at end insert
'(", subject to section (power to create regional authorities for purposes of waste regulation) below")'

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: This issue was debated at length in Committee—in probably one of the best debates that I have ever known in Committee—and it was also debated on Report. On that occasion, the Minister was not prepared to accept our amendment that would have set up regional waste regulation authorities. I told the Minister that I thought that it would not be too long before he came back with a proposal on waste regulation authorities if he was in Government long enough to be able to do so.
This proposal comes from the Environment Select Committee report, which clearly recommended that the poacher and gamekeeper roles should be separated, and that, if we were serious about environmental protection, we should have separate regulation authorities. We recognise that the Government's compromise is a somewhat timid step along the lines that we would wish. We shall not oppose the proposal because it establishes the right of voluntary groupings in the original instance. It reserves the Secretary of State's right ultimately to establish regional waste regulation authorities.
The Labour party and the Environment Select Committee are serious in their proposals for environmental protection and associated problems. The question is whether the Government are as serious as we are. As has been said many times, we believe that waste regulation authorities, together with the National Rivers Authority, which has already been established, would ultimately form the basis of an environmental protection agency. The voluntary groupings can provide a stronger role for waste disposal plans, with proper integration of those plans at regional level. They can also provide a joint approach to licensing and enforcement policies, regional consultation on the regulation of hazardous wastes and better deployment of specialist resources across the authorities.


Those are the reasons why we believe that we should have gone a step further and established the waste regulation authorities now.
Nevertheless, the Government are moving in the right direction. We hope that the voluntary groupings will succeed. I have no doubt that it will not be too long before waste regulation authorities are established to ensure proper and adequate control of private and public waste disposal and the best possible protection of our environment.

7 pm

Sir Hugh Rossi: It has been interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We have worked together on the Select Committee on the Environment on these concepts. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered those issues. Normally, I hesitate to make party political points on environmental issues because I like to see the Select Committee on the Environment working unanimously and as an all-party Committee—but my understanding was that it was Conservative members of the Committee who tabled amendments for the formation of regional waste authorities, but that they felt unable to proceed because they were not given the assurances, help and support that they required from the hon. Member for Burnley, who was also on that Committee——

Mr. Pike: It is unusual for me not to agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. However, he will find that I was a signatory to those amendments in Committee and that I supported them at every stage. I told the hon. Gentleman's colleagues that if they put their amendments to the vote, the Labour members of the Committee would support both amendments. The first debate convinced my hon. Friends that we were right in our approach. As I said, it was an extremely good debate and it was as a result of that debate that many of my hon. Friends became convinced that the Select Committee report was the correct course to follow.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent throughout and that the position has been somewhat misreported to me. However, I know that my colleagues on the Committee were unhappy at that stage because they could not carry the matter in the way that they had hoped. Nevertheless, that is all water under the bridge.
This has been a difficult issue between the Select Committee and the Government. When we first suggested the proposal, it was rejected by the Government mainly because they did not want to enter into confrontations with the local authorities once again or to embark on another reorganisation of the local authorities having done so very recently. That was one of the matters that hindered the Government when dealing with the issue. Incidentally, I understood that the local authorities had been making strong recommendations to friends of the hon. Member for Burnley and that that was another difficulty in making progress with the matter in Committee.
Be that as it may, I welcome the fact that the Government have now recognised that the Select Committee, which spent a great deal of time and took a

great deal of evidence on the way in which the present structures of the waste authorities were failing the country, concluded that such a system could be operated adequately only on a regional basis. We cited the London Waste Regulation Authority as an example of what could and should be done.
It is a pity that the Government are simply taking reserve powers to create regional waste authorities and that they are not going the whole hog. I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley that, as night follows day, sooner or later we shall see the creation of regional waste authorities. We shall then have reached what the Select Committee, on an all-party basis, set out to advise the Government to do.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I are not in any way against regional waste authorities. There has been much debate and discussion on that and I recognise the work done by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and his Committee, and others.
However, I should like to highlight one concern, which is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to create new authorities. I hope that he or his successor will recognise the views of local government. If the Secretary of State is given this additional power, there is a danger that the plans that have been voluntarily agreed between local authorities in a particular area will suddenly be intervened upon by the Secretary of State, who could decide to create a new authority irrespective of the wishes of those local authorities.
I believe that the whole process will be a matter of logic; that logic will dictate economic viability, and that geography and economic viability will dictate the right size for a regulation authority, which may well be regional. However, I hope that that conclusion will be endorsed by a Government decision only if it is the view of the current authorities at a lower level. I warn against any over-hasty intervention from the Government that might disrupt what would otherwise be the preferred approach of the democratically elected local councils.

Mr. Trippier: It kills me to say this, but I agree with every single word that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has just said. We have already been listening to the local authorities with regard to the regulatory function and waste disposal.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for reminding Opposition Members that a number of people in some local authorities, not least in some Labour-controlled authorities, hold different views on what should be done in terms of this matter from the parliamentary Labour party—not surprisingly.
I think that what I am hearing, from both the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, are two cheers for what we are doing. I am satisfied with that for the moment because, when I was responding to the debate in Committee, I did not think that I should get even one.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 44

RECEPTACLES FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTE

Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 48, line 11, leave out first ("receptacles or")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 93 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Nos. 94, 96, 97, 109, 110 and amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Pike: Although I should have pressed the amendments if the Government had been willing to accept them, we do not intend to divide the House because we are aware of the time. In all seriousness, the Government should be prepared to accept these modest amendments. If they do not, they will restrict the intention to move forward with recycling. I do not believe that the Government would want to admit that they are not in favour of recycling, so they should be prepared to support the two amendments.
The amendments refer to clause 46, which deals with
Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected.
The clause also deals with recycling of waste by waste collection authorities. Subsection (6) states:
A waste collection authority may, … provide plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste".
It should be noted that by implication that clearly identifies such functions as a function of the collection rather than the disposal authority. However, subsection (7) states: Subsection (6) above does not apply to an authority which is also a waste disposal authority; … the authority may make arrangements with a waste disposal contractor" to undertake the recycling function.
In Committee and on Report, we discussed on several occasions the varying division between regulation, collection and disposal authorities. No one system is common throughout the country. I certainly do not intend to go through those arguments again, but it is because of the variation in functions that the anomaly in the Bill would create a nonsense. The Government would not wish that to be the case.
The restrictions in subsection (7) will apply to metropolitan and local authorities, which are not part of a statutory waste disposal authority and to the Welsh district authorities. In each of those cases, the authority will be a collection and a disposal authority at the same time. In addition, in London there are four statutory disposal authorities, which may be abolished under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985.
In January 1989, the Government consulted on the role and functions of waste disposal authorities. When their decision on the results of the consultation were announced, they stated:
the four statutory disposal authorities in London will be abolished when their assets and liabilities are transferred to local authority waste disposal companies".
Since then the Government said:
We have therefore agreed to reconsider the case for each of the authorities to remain in being"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1990, Vol. 522, c. 1274.]
Indeed, they did so, and it was reported in the Official Report of the other place of 23 October. Of course, that is not sufficient to guarantee the position. The Government should be prepared to move in the direction that we seek.
7.15 pm
The amendment also has the support of Liberal Democrat Members, who will express their support in a few moments. The problem remains that a waste collection authority which is, or could become, a waste disposal authority as well, will be prevented from undertaking recycling activities. It is no good the Government supporting the principle of recycling during hours of debate in Committee, on Report and in another place if they do not deal with an anomaly in their Bill—which will become an Act in a few days—which in certain instances will physically prevent recycling from taking place. That is why we tabled the amendments. They are an attempt to ameliorate the effects of clause 46(7).
The Government have attempted to clarify which activities would be permissible. Despite the fact that the Bill refers to plant equipment sorting and baling, the Government have suggested that the provision of bottle banks will be allowed. However, it is doubted whether the Government's assertion that a bottle bank is a receptacle and, by implication, not a piece of equipment for sorting waste, is a rational distinction that could survive the test of law. Not only is a wide range of other banks used for collecting different types of waste but often other associated specialist equipment could by no means be defined as a receptacle.
I could give details of various activities in the London boroughs affecting Richmond, Westminster, Sutton and Havering. The same could be instanced for the Welsh districts. However, it would be wrong to take up the time of the House by going through those details. The Bill creates a problem and the Government should accept the modest change made by the amendments.
The Government must also recognise—they still fail to do so—that recycling is not a lucrative exercise. Even schemes that are considered economically successful have resulted from considerable pump-priming by local authorities, and it was necessary to plough back any income to maintain the viability of such schemes. As the Bill is drafted, an authority could engage contractors to do the work. Any proposal would inevitably entail additional costs or variations in the scheme, which would reduce its viability.
There is an important principle here, and if time permitted we should press the amendments. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the Bill creates an anomaly that he would not want. He would not wish to bar any London authority or Welsh district authority, which was both a collection and a disposal authority, from dealing with recycling when other authorities are encouraged to undertake recycling. That would be nonsense. If the Minister is sensible, he will see the logic of the amendments and accept them.

Mr. Paul Marland: According to the rules of the House, I begin by declaring an interest in metal recycling, which enables me to speak with some authority on the industry and, I hope, to point the Government in the right direction under the heading of recycling arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, it is with a certain sense of disappointment that, despite being at my most persuasive, I have not managed to persuade him that the right way forward would be to separate scrap metal from the general definition of waste. He continues to insist that that is what it is and that that is how it should be treated. In fairness, I must admit that


he has left his door open to me by giving me an assurance that, if I can find a metal recycling merchant who is finding it difficult to have his premises licensed, my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me. If I submit full details to him, he will investigate the matter. As yet, I have not come up with a scrap-metal dealer who is encountering such difficulties, expecially as local authorities have only just started to license scrap-metal yards.
There are some difficulties about the length of time for which local authorities are prepared to issue licenses. Sadly, some are not prepared to issue them beyond five years, but the investment required for the efficient recycling of metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, means that more than five years is needed in which to recoup such investment. The industry is, however, living with that problem.
At the moment, George Lyons and Co. of Liverpool is having trouble with an unco-operative Merseyside development corporation. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I will be able to sort that out without resorting to ministerial help. It is important to remember that most local authorities are only now beginning to embark on the licensing of their scrapyards.
On the definition of waste, we must look for assistance where we can. Perhaps the Confederation of British Industry has come to our rescue because, in its documents on the business agenda for Europe in the 1990s, it seeks for a clear distinction to be made between waste and secondary raw material so that recycling is promoted and resources are better utilised.
As I said in many speeches to the Committee on this subject, I understand that the European Community may be issuing a directive on inter-European movement of waste. Exemptions to regulations may result from that directive based on the category of waste to be moved across frontiers. The categories of waste are as follows: white, grey and black. Obviously, the most hazardous material falls into the black category. Such categorisation would benefit the movement of ferrous scrap, which would obviously come in the white group. Eurofer, the European equivalent of the British Scrap Federation, has had assurances from the Commission that it is aware of the problems created by calling scrap metal waste and it has agreed that ferrous scrap could be removed from the category of waste.
If ferrous scrap is removed from the category of waste or is classified differently by the Commission, will my hon. Friend the Minister preserve our Euro-credentials and follow suit in the United Kingdom? In common with many other hon. Members, I dislike the expression "a level playing field", but the United Kingdom reclamation industry needs reassurance that it will be treated the same as the European reclamation industry. It is disconcerting to record that the licensing of scrapyards has not yet begun in Denmark, Belgium, France or Italy—Lord only knows what is happening in Ireland. What is required is fair competition across Europe.
There are some other specific matters on which I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend. Will representatives of the reclamation industry be consulted about any future changes to the licensing procedure? When Lord Hesketh was at the Department of the Environment he gave me and

other members of the industry the reassurance that such consultation would take place. Now that Lord Hesketh has moved on, I should be glad if my hon. Friend could reaffirm that commitment. Consultation on the annual costs and criteria for the licensing of scrap yards would also be enormously reassuring. Similarly, it would be reassuring to have discussions with the Department of the Environment on the waste management paper concerning advice to local authorities on the procedures for licensing.
Lest the House should think otherwise, I want to emphasise that the reclamation industry does not in any way want to pollute or to irritate. It wants to set high standards and to ensure that their enforcement is practical and efficient. I am pleased to tell the House that two scrap-metal recyclers have been awarded the British quality standard award BS 5750 for setting a high standard in their own businesses. I believe that we owe a great deal to the scrap-metal industry and to farmers, who are probably the most active promoters of a clean environment.
There is some confusion over recycling credits and who shall get them from the county council in rural areas. Will the skip operator and the reclaimer obtain those credits or the district local authority, which, in many cases, is already charging for bottle banks and the like? Will those authorities be reimbursed for doing so, as well as being paid? Will the waste collection authority receive the credits?
It would be commendable and emotionally appealing if recycling credits were given to the boy scouts for collecting old drink tins or bottle tops or to a local women's institute for collecting waste paper—many of whom make a first-class job of it. If such functions are undertaken by a professional organisation, such as a refuse collector or a scrap-metal dealer, will it collect a recycling credit? After all, those organisations perform a commendable job. We also need clarification of exactly what a recycling credit is. Is it a cash payment? Is a credit note to be offset against some local authority charges or something else? Whatever it may be, it would be helpful to have some clarification.
There are other on-going problems that must be addressed. Firstly, will the reclamation industry be consulted on any enabling legislation as a result of the Bill? It should also be consulted about any changes that the Department of the Environment may want to introduce once the Bill is enacted. Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that the inspectors, or whoever, who follow the regulations to ensure that they are adhered to, all work to the same brief, regardless of their location? It is difficult for the industry if the inspectors in Liverpool are working to a different brief from that used in Guildford. I must insist that the cowboy operators do not profit at the expense of the legitimate trader.
Finally, I should like to put on record how much I have appreciated my hon. Friend's willingness to discuss these matters during the passage of the Bill and the ready way in which he has sought to familiarise himself with ferrous metal reclamation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 110, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends and I, is extremely straightforward: it requires that those who carry out the recycling are paid for the process.
Our amendment relates to the new clause proposed by Lords amendment No. 110. It changes the option that there "may" be payment to the waste collection authority


to a requirement that there "shall" be. I hope that the Minister will be favourably disposed towards that amendment.
I do not dissent greatly from the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), but he will not be surprised if I speak to another specific concern—one which I am sure the Minister expected that I should want to express. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has already mentioned the problem, which is now the subject of amendments tabled by the Labour party and my party. If a waste collection authority should become a waste disposal authority, it would be prevented from carrying out certain recycling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues have received written representations on this matter and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was questioned about it at a recent conference. Concern about this matter is especially prevalent in authorities such as the London boroughs of Richmond and Sutton, which have taken the lead in recycling initiatives under the administration of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Richmond is a collection authority and also one of the constituent members of the west London waste authority—one of the four statutory London waste disposal authorities. I do not think that there is any party political doubt that that borough has been at the forefront of recycling activities. It operates a range of collection activities covering bottles, rags, cans, office waste paper, computer paper and commercial glass. There are many points around the borough for the collection of board, waste oil, plastic and so on. It has storage bays for recycling, which other boroughs also use. It is now investigating micro recycling centres. It has a lot of fairly sophisticated equipment either already commissioned or planned. It clearly has a sophisticated process for servicing the facilities and doing an extremely good job.
To take up the point of the hon. Member for Burnley, it would be invidious for a local authority to have to pay and make a loss on some environmental and recycling activities if, on the rare occasion when it was to make a profit—which it normally uses to encourage voluntary activity—it was to be prohibited from any activity.
7.30 pm
My colleagues in Richmond are worried that the Government's approach will mean that my colleagues will not be allowed to retain in house, organised by the local authority as opposed to contracted out, all the recycling initiatives which it is accepted have been among the best in the country.
The Sutton case is parallel. It is a collection authority and, as the Under-Secretary will know, it is also a disposal authority by virtue of being a member of the voluntary south London waste disposal joint committee. It has purchased vehicles for glass collection, put its in-house direct labour operation out to compulsory, competitive tender and won the contract. As a result, it has begun to programme a range of activities that require investment of money and officer time. It is equally concerned that that project is likely to be thwarted by the current trend of Government activity.
I expect that the Under-Secretary has seen the letter written to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, dated 22 October, by the leader of Sutton borough council, Councillor Graham Tope. Councillor Tope asks a

limited number of specific questions, which I shall repeat because, as far as I know, they have not yet been answered and go to the core of the issue. He asks whether it is the Minister's intention that the Bill will allow a waste collection authority that is also a waste disposal authority to provide and operate, either by direct labour or private contractor, a recycling facility and be in receipt of a rebate which will be a transfer from its waste disposal or waste collection account to a recycling account. It seems to the councillor, as it does to my colleagues and me, that that is an encouragement to be a good recycling authority. It is a perfectly proper activity.
What is intended to be the commercial, financial interaction between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities? What about commercial contractual commitments entered into, as at present, by local authorities, either with other local authorities to do their recycling for them, or with direct service organisations or private companies? Will they be allowed to go ahead and honour those or will they have penalties imposed on them if they do? Will there be a programme whereby waste collection authorities will have to invite tenders for the receipt of waste that they collect? How will they be able to carry out what they are presently doing without breach of contract?
I confirm the concerns that have also been taken up with Ministers by my colleagues in Richmond upon Thames. The Minister will be aware that my colleague, Lord Ezra, raised those matters in the other place in the debate only a week ago. There has been correspondence, including some from Lady Blatch, as the Under-Secretary of State responsible for such matters in the other place, and from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to officers of the London borough of Richmond, but they do not address the fundamental concern. We have not yet had a reassurance that local authorities will be able, if they are in the constitutional position of being both collection and disposal authorities, to carry out in house the recycling activity that they have clearly done well and wish to carry on. There are all sorts of practical implications in that.
I hope that the Minister can be far more positive and will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 110. I hope that he will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 93 and say that, where recycling has been pioneered by good local authorities, they will be allowed to go on doing it and will not be forced by what I can only assume is an initial mistake to have recycling out of house, so that it is no longer an operation in which they can lead the local community and volunteer effort, and set an extremely good example that many other local authorities are willing and happy to follow.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: While we are considering the statutory responsibilities and the question whether the amendment should read "may" or "shall"" it is possible to re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) talked about—the commercial recycling and reclamation, and the individual and voluntary groups. Obviously, they can mesh together. If we ever forget to emphasise how important it is for each of us to consider what we can do and try to ensure that those with commercial opportunities


for selling and reclaiming products receive some response to what they do, whether they do it correctly or not, we shall not achieve the full spectrum of necessary activity.
I pay tribute to the mayoress of Cambridge. When she bought a plastic product packed in a container that stated that it was recyclable she tried to find out how it was recyclable and was told that at some future stage it might be possible to sort out different sorts of plastic and perhaps that form of plastic could be melted down and used. I regard that as offensive. We must start with current products that can be recycled, with voluntary help to overcome the transport and collection costs, as with aluminium and paper, and then move to the time when the value of waste paper is taken from £3 a tonne back to £30 a tonne and promote more commercial opportunity in collection and disposal.
My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to provide a focus for all the efforts, but when people consider the results of the legislation, they will remember the role of voluntary organisations and domestic households, as well as commercial premises.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am a Member who recognises that world resources are finite and recycling has an important part to play. However, experience in my constituency during the past 18 months makes it clear that recycling has to be carried out within a framework of adequate and ongoing supervision and regulation. I recognise the need for the reclamation of metals. As a Member with a significant part of the British special steels industry in my constituency, I should be foolish not to do so.
I shall restrict my speech on the group of amendments to a local incident with which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is familiar and to which he has devoted a fair amount of time and energy. About 18 months ago, a consignment of toxic waste, contained in a load of copper scrap, reached my constituency. The material was supposed to be uncontaminated, but after it had lain in the open for some time it was discovered to be contaminated by carcinogenic materials—what I described last year as a poisonous cocktail.
That incident has cost my local authority considerable sums in supervision. It has also had to bear the burden of anxiety felt throughout the local community. The saddest part is that the material was already in Britain and had been here for some weeks before the poison was discovered, which suggests that the regulations should be changed and that the role of the local authority and its capacity to meet the costs that it incurred should be enshrined in new legislation.
The Minister may care to offer his latest comments on the position, but 18 months later the material is still in my constituency. It is now contained in more than 2,700 drums and has been there for 12 months—heaven knows when it will go. While that material remains in my constituency, it is evidence of the inadequacy of regulation and the need for care and supervision to assist local authorities to ensure that their communities are protected. It may be that it was unwitting poisoning, although we cannot be sure until the court case is resolved in the United States. However, that incident provides adequate evidence to sustain continuing concern in the House. We want a commitment from Ministers that, if existing regulations

prove inadequate and bring the risk of a repeat performance of that which has blighted my area, they will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation—which I believe will be necessary at an early stage.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am delighted that he is now speaking from the Front Bench; his presence there is long overdue.
I am concerned that we are endangering the legislation by making recycling less practical and more difficult, rather than easier. We should be encouraging recycling. There are two approaches to the problem—pre-collection sorting and post-collection sorting. Unfortunately, the legislation tends to put those two approaches in competition, rather than encouraging co-operation. Pre-collection sorting was pioneered in Huddersfield 10 years ago—I think that it was an Oxfam scheme—but, unfortunately, it ran into financial difficulties and ceased operation. More recently, Friends of the Earth, in co-operation with the Sheffield local authority, operated a recycling scheme.
Both schemes involved the householder separating his rubbish into four or five different piles and putting them into separate containers, which were then collected from the households. People in other authorities separate their rubbish, although the refuse collection service does not deal with separated items. The householders have to take them to bottle banks, waste paper collection points, tin can collection points and so on.
There are considerable attractions in the pre-sorting process. For example, it increases public awareness of how much is being thrown away and the value of those items. The scheme is cheap to operate because it relies on the householder to sort the rubbish. However, the scheme has disadvantages. It can be inefficient because some people will not go to the trouble of sorting their rubbish; the elderly and the disabled may find sorting difficult; and in tower blocks and flats there is often the difficulty of only one refuse chute for rubbish, so that it is difficult to sort it effectively.
Another problem is that, however hard one tries, a large proportion of rubbish is not sorted. A certain amount can be extracted, but it is difficult to extract and sort all the rubbish into reusable materials. The process can also be expensive. There are many examples of people who religiously take paper and bottles to collection points, but in fact they use more energy transporting the rubbish than is saved by recycling.
I suspect that the pre-sorting process causes problems for waste disposal authorities that have begun to develop post-sorting of refuse. The temptation is to take from the refuse the one or two valuable materials that will command a high price. That destroys the economics of sorting all the rubbish. That is why I disagree with the Liberal-Democrat amendment to replace the word "may" with "shall". If a collection authority is separating paper, bottles or any other materials in the rubbish that might otherwise go to landfill, it is doing a valuable service and should receive some remuneration to take account of the fact that it is reducing the amount of landfill. If a local authority sorts all the refuse in its depot, the pre-collection method that takes out the most valuable items—for example, aluminium and tin—may destroy the economics of that authority's attempt to recycle all the waste.
One disadvantage of post-collection sorting is that it does not impress upon the public the importance of the resources being used. It is unseen by the public, because it takes place in the waste disposal depot. The process can also be expensive, especially because of the capital costs of installing equipment to separate the rubbish. However, almost 100 per cent. recycling can be achieved. The Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is running an experimental scheme, and I understand that an authority in the west midlands also has a recycling contract.
Paper, tin, aluminium and different sorts of plastic can be extracted and, eventually, there is a residue of humus material that can be turned into an acceptable substitute for peat, which is environmentally attractive. If all that takes place, Iandfill can be avoided and there is a recycled use of the materials. The danger is that that approach can be destroyed if the pre-collection authority extracts one or two of the more valuable materials. That destroys the economic viability of the large plants that are intended to sort all the refuse.
7.45 pm
There needs to be a co-operative approach in any local authority area. The collection and disposal authorities should discuss whether pre-or post-collection is the most reasonable. They should make financial arrangements to take that into account. The Government also have a key role in that because, whether it is pre- or post-collection, the paramount question is what price can be commanded for the recycled materials. The Government should be doing much more to ensure guaranteed prices for recycled materials. They should increase the specifications, especially in Government purchasing, for the use of recycled materials.
The Government have made some progress in the use of recycled paper, but they could go much further. It is regrettable that, in other areas of Government purchasing, there is no requirement for the use of, for example, recycled glass. I ask the Minister to ensure that this legislation does not produce an artificial conflict between the collection and the disposal authorities. The Government must do as much as possible to ensure guaranteed prices, especially in a period when it appears that there will be a general slump in industrial activity. We must not destroy the impetus of the recycling industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The debate has echoed some of our discussions in Committee, and they were some of our best debates. There was an especially striking speech from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who, in an associated debate on packaging, brought to the Committee a shirt box containing a new shirt. He used that to show how the manufacturer could do without a great deal of the packaging, pins, labels and so on. It was an excellent prop.
In other debates, there were contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who impressed upon the Committee the fact that this country has a good record in reclamation and scrap reprocessing. He instigated a visit by me to a large and important scrap merchant in London which showed me what was happening on the ground. It also showed me the importance of doing nothing in the Bill that might impede the recovery of ferrous and other scrap.
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue closely to consult the relevant industry. My officials have already had preliminary discussions with the British Secondary Metals Association, and they will be happy to extend them to the British Scrap Federation. Those discussions will be most usefully held after we have issued a first draft of our licensing regulations and the associated guidance, so that there will be something definite on the table to discuss. Those notes and regulations will meet my hon. Friend's concern that different standards might apply in different parts of the country—and that is something we certainly want to avoid.
My hon. Friend mentioned the boundary transfer of waste. We are determined that regulations on an international or EC basis, although necessary, will not impede or inhibit the legitimate recycling trade. However, I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that we must not assume that all potentially recyclable waste is by definition non-hazardous.
My hon. Friend asked about recycling credits. T he Lords amendment sets out in detail how those credits are to be paid, and the philosophy is comparatively simple. When material is reclaimed from the waste stream and recycled, there is a saving on disposal costs. Put simply, each tonne of glass that we recycle is a tonne of which we do not have to dispose. The purpose of the amendments, which I believe have cross-party support, is to capture that sum of money in cash terms and to attribute it to the recycling activity.
Several hon. Members asked who is to receive those credits. Under amendment No. 92, they should, as a requirement, go to the waste collection authority, and also to third parties where appropriate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted to ensure that that arrangement will not impede the more general recycling undertaken in the voluntary sector. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that that sector is an essential part of the activity, and we must do nothing to inhibit it.
I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment, because there may be instances where economies of scale will make it more appropriate for a recycling scheme to be run by a waste collection authority rather than by voluntary bodies. In other cases, a number of voluntary bodies may be operating similar schemes in the same area, and it would not necessarily be appropriate for a waste disposal authority to pay credits to a number of competing schemes—especially if some of them recycle only small amounts of waste.
One can imagine a situation in which the viability of a large door-to-door collection scheme depends on collecting and recycling of all the materials, including more valuable items such as aluminium cans. It would be unfortunate if a small-scale competitor went down the street in advance of the recycling wagon and simply picked up the more valuable aluminium cans, as that might render the competing scheme uneconomic.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Are not boroughs such as Sutton and Richmond concerned that it might operate the other way around? The local collecting authority may have established a viable business and then find that it is taken away and given to another agency, private or public, so that the authority would lose that revenue. Sutton was the first local authority in Britain to introduce the


recycling of CFCs, and my own local authority of Gordon was the second. They do not make money from that activity, and it is only reasonable that they should be able to secure some benefit, so that they can cross-subsidise. If revenue is lost to local authorities, a greater burden will fall on poll tax payers.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I intend to address the question of unitary disposal or collection authorities, but I was making the point that some discretion must be allowed as to the type of third party recycling scheme that a local waste disposal authority wants to encourage in its area. Because we believe in such discretion, we reject the idea of making it compulsory that recycling credits should be given automatically to every scheme in any particular area.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sutton, and I am happy to acknowledge the work done by that London borough, which is something of a leader in certain aspects of recycling.
That leads me to the disquiet felt by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). In Committee, it was agreed that waste disposal authorities should transfer their disposal operations to what were called LAWDCs—local authority waste disposal companies. A local authority will be required to transfer all the relevant plant and equipment for the keeping, treatment or disposal of such waste to such a company, or to make alternative arrangements with the private sector for its provision. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, I take it that he accepts the LAWDC principle.
It follows that it would not be sensible to allow those that happen to be both collection and disposal authorities to provide and operate as collection authorities equipment that they would be unable to provide and operate as disposal authorities. A line must be drawn somewhere, as to which plant and equipment a collection authority should operate. Our view is that the line should be drawn at the plant and equipment that a collection authority would normally provide as part of its collection duties.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister says that a line must be drawn somewhere, but surely local government should be allowed to make its own decisions as to the most appropriate arrangement for a particular part of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the tremendous variations that exist in the areas and populations involved. Instead of imposing legislation nationally, would it not be better and more democratic to allow such matters to be decided locally?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and must be aware that the establishment of LAWDCs underpins this part of the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that LAWDCs need not be privately owned but can be entirely in the public sector, joint ventures, or companies jointly owned by the private and public sector.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote to me to ensure that, in clause 46(6), the words
plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste
include bottle banks and other collection facilities. I examined carefully the wording of the Bill, and I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the title of clause 46:
Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collection.

It implies that we are here considering waste that has already been collected and is at the disposal phase. Only those facilities, and that plant and equipment, will be that from which we are precluding the collection and disposal authorities from owning. Consequently, bottle banks and light plant and equipment of that type should be permitted to be owned and run by the London boroughs that are both collection and disposal authorities. I hope that I have put the hon. Lady's mind at rest, and I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 66

POWERS OF ENTRY ETC. OF INSPECTORS

Lords amendment: No. 157, in page 71, line 32, after ("treated") insert (", kept")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 163 and 298.

8 pm

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that he should say anything about the effect on airports, railway stations and ferry ports, because of the changes made by another place in clause 72 and their references in paragraph (b) of their amendment No. 163 to
any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of transport services by land, water or air"?

Mr. Trippier: Amendment 163 updates the definition of industrial waste in clause 72 in such a way that it no longer relies upon who owns or operates the industry or on what it does. That is a safer means of delivering the same effect. I remember that my hon. Friend mentioned this subject in Committee, and I am grateful to him. The amended clause would have a wider application, and it would be more stringently enforced. I think that that meets his concerns in every particular.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

DOG REGISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 296, after clause 134, insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the registration, identification and control of dogs.

(2) Regulations under this section shall include, provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities, and for the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts, and subject to such exemptions, as they may determine or the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(3) Any person who without reasonable excuse—
(a) fails to comply without any requirement imposed on him by regulations under this section to register a dog, or
(b) fails to comply with any requirement so imposed as respects identification of a dog,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(4) in performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter into such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.

(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London, and in Scotland means an islands or district council.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments (e) to (g) and (a) to (d) to the new clause; Lords amendment No. 299, and the Government motion to disagree; and Lords amendment No. 436 and the Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In previous debates on the subject of dogs, there has been widespread agreement that measures are necessary to deal with the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership.
We have now placed before the House a package of measures on dog identification and straying. But we remain opposed to the idea of attempting to register all dogs in the country. That would be an expensive and bureaucratic diversion from the need to act decisively against the actual problems. In short, we want to solve the problem, not register it.
A registration scheme would be expensive—according to the RSPCA's own figures, it would cost some £20 million a year simply to administer the scheme. That sum would have to be spent before providing any dog wardens or kenneling facilities at all.

Mr. John P. Smith: Surely the whole point about the dog registration scheme is that it would be self-financing?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me demonstrate that a dog registration scheme is an extremely inefficient way to raise money for providing dog control services. As I have said, if one takes the RSPCA's figures, £20 million a year would be diverted not into providing wardens and kennelling facilities but simply to run the scheme. Therefore, it would be entirely unproductive in dealing with the problems that exist. Registration is not an effective way to raise the necessary revenue to enforce dog control measures.

Mr. Gale: The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned, which is not in dispute, represents £3 per dog. Does he consider that that is excessive?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is assuming a high level of compliance. In Northern Ireland they have been attempting for the past seven years to enforce a dog licensing system costing only £5 a year. It is estimated that between one third and one half of the dogs in the Province have a licence. Widespread concern has been expressed in this country about the likely level of fees, especially for low-income dog owners.
Last year, the RSPCA commissioned a study from the London School of Economics. I can be forgiven, therefore, for quoting figures and sums that have come not from my Department but from an independent and authoritative study. It calculated that, with a 60 per cent. compliance rate, which I regard as highly optimistic in the light of the Northern Ireland experience, a one-off fee of £121·50 would be necessary. Alternatively, there could be a first-year registration fee of £29 and continuing annual fees. That would be a financial burden for some and a disincentive to register for others. It is the irresponsible dog owner who would be the last to comply and pay up. The law-abiding owner would therefore subsidise the irresponsible owner whose dogs create all the problems.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister refers to the experience in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the problem of stray dogs worrying sheep has dramatically diminished in Northern Ireland due to the introduction of the scheme? Might it not be that, although some people are reluctant to register their dogs, they now make sure that they do not cause any of the nuisances in Northern Ireland that we are so concerned about?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The number of stray dogs that have to be destroyed has not fallen. Despite the fact that the licensing system has been in operation for seven years, that pile of dead dogs that the RSPCA is so fond of showing us has been either stable or growing in that part of the United Kingdom where dog licensing has been enforced.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the chief environmental health officer of Belfast, who is on record as saying that, without dog registration, the problem would be a great deal worse?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My point is that, despite the enforcement measures that have been taken during the last seven years, fewer than half the dogs are licensed. The fee is only £5. If the fee were higher, as the scheme proponents suppose it would be here, I suggest that it might be difficult to reach even those standards of compliance.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I happened to be a Northern Ireland Minister at the time that the scheme was introduced. It was not anticipated that there would be a substantial take-up of the licence, whatever figure was set. Circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that it is very difficult for the Government to recover dues from sections of the population. The rent and rates system has been subject from time to time to rent and rate strikes. The notorious black taxis that run up and down the Falls road are unlicensed and cannot be licensed. The scheme is totally unenforceable.
Nevertheless, the experience in Northern Ireland is that the scheme has had a beneficial effect. Sheep worrying has diminished. As those who are responsible for administering the scheme are the first to state, the situation would be far, far worse without the scheme.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I would not lean too heavily on the experience in Belfast, where doubtless the conditions outlined by my hon. Friend obtain. There is no reason why compliance should not be higher in rural areas of Northern Ireland. Regrettably, in the Province as a whole, the licensing system appears to cover fewer than half the dogs.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the Minister who was formerly responsible for agriculture and sheep worrying, I confirm that the number of complaints is low, although it is rising. The fairer way to put it is that, during the first year of the scheme's operation in Northern Ireland, if one added together the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected, the figure came to fewer than 11,000. During the last year for which we have figures, the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected came to 17,000. Those comparative figures do not self-evidently demonstrate that licensing deals with the impounding of dogs or with the dogs that their owners no longer want to keep.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I respect my hon. Friend's point. The critical factor is how many dog wardens, kennelling facilities and vehicles are used to round up, collect and hold strays. It is exactly in order to do that that we are introducing the present package of amendments.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that the Northern Ireland scheme resulted in an improvement. May I put it to the Minister that the scheme that he is suggesting would, in Northern Ireland circumstances, produce an even greater improvement? The burden of my hon. Friend's case is that his proposal is better than the Lords amendment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Any improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland is not attributable to the licensing system. It is due to the wardening facilities that are available in the Province.

Mr. Martin Flannery: There is an intractable case i n my constituency which demonstrates how foolish the present regime is. In a small terraced house, there are six chow dogs and three border collies, as well as two cats. The neighbours nearly go mad. There is no law to prevent that. Such foolishness, widespread in many areas, would be deterred if people had to contribute to a sensible scheme. I have a file about the case, but I can do nothing about it. I know that similar cases occur in many other areas.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The owner of the six chow dogs might resent having to register and pay the full fee when it is not those dogs that create the problem.

Dame Janet Fookes: To refer to the position in Northern Ireland, I have spoken personally today to the chief dog warden for Belfast city council. He assured me that Belfast welcomes licensing and regards it as absolutely essential if the council is to carry out its job properly. Is the Minister suggesting that that man is an incompetent fool?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has drawn attention again to Belfast. I had not intended to lean too heavily on the experience of that one city, with its particular problems. The Government's duty, however, is to consult more widely and to talk to others, apart from the people who are employed to do the job in Belfast. We sent over officials to discuss the matter with the USPCA and local authorities and to examine statistics from a number of different sources. We concluded that the level of

compliance in Northern Ireland was low and that any improvement in the stray dog problem in the Province could not be attributed to the licensing system.
As for exemptions, I have already mentioned that those who comply and pay the full fee might resent the fact that it is the irresponsible minority who create the problem who may be deterred from registering. The problem could be made worse if there were widespread exemptions. If old-age pensioners or those on income support were exempted from charges, or if there were exemptions for guide dogs or working dogs, all those animals would still have to be registered, but no income would accrue. Still higher costs could fall on the long-suffering, law-abiding owner who registers. In short, a registration scheme would be an expensive and bureaucratic way of not solving the problem.
That remains our view on dog registration, but I have always agreed about the need for action. As I said in April, and as my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place, we intend to introduce measures to deal with stray dogs.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among responsible dog owners that they will have to bear the burden of this increased bureaucracy and the enormous army of dog wardens that will be required because a significant number of irresponsible dog owners will not pay their registration fee? Is he aware that the burden of my constituency mail has changed since the House of Lords voted for a registration scheme? The majority of people who now write to me are against such a scheme, and today a petition of more than 14,000 signatures has been placed in the House of Commons against a dog registration scheme. Public opinion is turning on this issue.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend underlines the point that I was making about the responsible dog owner. I am aware of two large petitions that have been handed in against dog registration.
The Government always intended to deal with the problem of stray dogs, which was why last year we announced a consultation paper, "Action on Dogs". It was returned to the Department with a substantial measure of agreement. Its suggestions could not be incorporated into the original Bill as they were outside its scope, but since then the long title of the Bill has been amended in another place. It brings dog control measures clearly within the scope of the Bill, and we wish to accept that. The package of measures that we propose will, I think, tackle the problem on the ground.
Let me deal with the need for identification. Since 1930, every dog in a public place has been required to wear a collar and identification tag, with certain exemptions. Enforcement, which is split between local authorities and the police, has been extremely patchy. Amendment (g) places this duty squarely on district councils. It providces a simple, visible and immediate way of linking owner with dog and enables dogs to be returned to their owners without the need for the authorities to be involved.
I invite the House to compare that with the complexity of an electronic registration scheme, by which an implanted microchip must be read by a specialist scanner to give a number, which is then fed into a central computer


to give the last recorded address of the last registered owner. We propose, instead, a practical solution to a practical problem, which dog registration does not supply.
Similarly for stray dogs; since 1906, the police have had powers to collect and hold strays and local authorities have had such powers in recent years. But no one has had the duty to collect and hold strays. We propose that this should be settled at district level. District councils will be responsible for collecting and holding stray dogs. To do that, they may employ an agent such as a dog welfare body, but they will remain responsible for carrying out their duties properly.
To encourage the public to continue to help in dealing with the stray dog problem, they will, as at present, be able to continue to take stray dogs to the nearest police station or direct to the local authority. District councils will hold stray dogs for at least seven days. If the owner retrieves the dog, he will have to pay the cost of kennelling and, in addition, a fee to defray the cost of the warden and collection service. If the dog remains uncollected, it will be sold, given away or humanely destroyed.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend has given slightly the wrong impression. Will he confirm that the Lords amendment does not include anything about placing an implant in a dog and electronically monitoring it? It leaves the decision on the methods of control for further discussion at some other time.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The national registration scheme which has been advocated by its roponents—[Interruption.] It is an inescapable part of that scheme that there should be a central computer and a means of linking a dog in any part of the country with that computer. All the descriptions and advice that I have received, certainly from the RSCPA, have been along the lines of an electronic device. I have already described how that is an imprecise and inefficient way of doing what is better done by enforcement of the collar and tag requirement.
I have already said that, in addition to paying the kennelling fee, a person collecting a stray dog will have to pay a fee towards the cost of the warden service. That will raise additional revenue, but I recognise that acting against strays in this manner, and the new obligation on district councils, will mean increased expenditure. Before implementing the package, we would need to discuss its details with local authorities and take the new duties into account in determining revenue support grant. More than 200 local authorities already employ dog wardens within existing resources, and I believe that the city of Bradford employs five.
Authorities can expect additional revenue when stray dogs are collected by their owners, who will pay a fee which will be retained by the district council. According to the LSE report, about a quarter of stray dogs are returned to their owners, so this source of revenue could be significant. It also has the great advantage that the dog owners who create the problem will pay directly for its solution, and again this is an advantage over a national dog registration scheme.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should be grateful if the Minister would not, unintentionally I am sure, mislead the House on another matter. Not only has he not yet confirmed that the Lords amendment was a general amendment with no specific scheme allowing for regulations, but he has not said that more than 200 of the 250 local authorities which

responded to his consultation favoured a dog registration scheme. The reality of his proposal—that people who turn up to collect their stray dog will pay—is that the fine will be paid after the dog has bolted, which is a ludicrous stystem. Is it not better that people pay in advance and become responsible from the moment the dog is theirs?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that an electronic tagging system is now deemed impracticable, he will agree that the collar and tag requirement provides a simpler, more immediate and more direct means of linking an owner with his dog.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I must get on. Will my hon. Friend forgive me?
In earlier debates, we promised to offer local authorities improved byelaws aimed directly at curbing dog nuisance. Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office published details of such byelaws.
There are already byelaws giving local authorities the ability to require owners to clear up after their dogs, the so-called "pooper scoop" byelaw. The Home Office has now greatly extended the discretion of local authorities. They can also require dogs to be kept on a lead or banned from certain areas at certain times of the day. With the other measures against dog fouling in another part of the Bill, local authorities will have these additional clear. specific and well-targeted powers to deal with dog fouling and other nuisances in their areas.
8.30 pm
For the sake of completeness, I should remind the House that dangerous dogs were the subject of another consultation paper which we issued in June this year. Consultation on it ends on 15 November, and again we shall look for a suitable opportunity to legislate if those measures achieve wide support.

Mr. Robert Banks: rose——

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no one dog problem and no one solution. I notice that the advocates of dog registration have begun to downgrade its powers. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ended a recent open letter with the rather lame statement:
A national dog registration scheme is not the answer, but it is the key to a package of measures".
I am proposing that package. It enforces identification, it acts directly against stray dogs; and it penalises the irresponsible owner. It does this without the need to get every dog on a computer. This evening, I invite the House to pass the measures which we propose. That will he a big step along the road to creating a more responsible dog-owning country.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I must oppose the Government's motion and support the amendment that was carried overwhelmingly in the House of Lords a few weeks ago. I hope to be brief—unlike the Minister—because we all want to make progress, and a good number of hon. Members want to speak.
My instant reaction to this debate is to say, here we are again. It is remarkable that, once again, the greatest Government effort on the Bill so far seems to be to defeat dog registration. It is clear that the Minister was not happy with the task allotted to him. It is not very comfortable to


have to argue that people will not pay to register their dogs but will pay to collect them once they have strayed. I understand the Minister's problems.
The reason why Ministers have had to make such heavy weather of this debate is not that they are not convinced of the need for dog registration. The story that Ministers at the Department of the Environment were willing to accept the Lords amendment and the Government's defeat there has not been denied. It seems clear that the reason why we are having this debate is that one person, the Prime Minister, wants to persist in her opposition. Here we are again having this debate, with the Government refusing to do the obvious and introduce dog registration.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I remind the hon. Lady of an amendment tabled on Report to the Control of Pollution Bill in 1974 proposing a scheme for dog registration. It was not taken, but instead a working party was set up and it came forward with proposals for a dog registration scheme. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce a scheme of the kind before us. Why did not it do so?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that opinion generally during those years was moving in favour of dog registration schemes. Without doubt, the problems that have arisen in the past 10 years prove that we need to do something urgently and stop the kind of talk on which the Minister has always embarked.
What we have seen from the Minister today is what we have seen from him on every other occasion. Every time we have this debate, the Whips scurry around and tell Ministers that they are not sure that they can carry the day. They ask Ministers to pull something out of the hat and whether they will have one of their famous incentives and produce yet another package. We have had consultation papers and discussion documents, everything from Ministers except what we need—a commitment to a dog registration scheme.
That happened again last Thursday, when there was a planted question and the Whips were worried about tonight's vote. The package that the Minister outlined this evening is exactly the same as all the other so-called packages: it is all wrapping and no content, not least because Ministers are extremely worried that if they concede anything, the Prime Minister will have her say and they will all be in trouble.
I see that the junior Minister had yet again been left isolated to deal with the problem.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Lady keeps making the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is behind this, but she keeps forgetting that many hon. Members are wholly opposed to such a scheme because it would not work and does not address the problem.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Every time we have had a vote, every time we have had a debate on dog registration, it has become clear that the majority of Members—Ministers apart—have always voted for dog registration.
The Minister should step back from his brief and instructions and think about the problems that are involved and that he has mentioned—of dog control, dog

fouling and dangerous dogs—and ask himself why so many people are in favour of dog registration. Why are the majority of the public in favour of dog registration? The majority of Back Benchers, members of the House of Lords and dog owners are in favour of dog registration.
Many responsible organisations that have experience or expertise in these matters are committed to a dog registration scheme: the Association of District Councils, which is mainly Conservative controlled; the Battersea dogs' home; the British Veterinary Association; Child Care Concern; the Country Landowners Association; the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; the National Canine Defence League; the National Farmers Union; the National Federation of Women's Institutes; the Police Federation; and the Townswomen's Guild—not organisations that always support the Labour party. They are a cross-section of people who have had different experiences of the problems about which we are talking. I hope that Ministers will not push their concerns to one side and will not simply say that something will be done at some time. Ministers and Conservative Members should realise that it is about time we had action.
We must be absolutely clear about the content of the Lords amendment. It is a straightforward amendment, which states that a dog registration scheme should be established. It is not, as the Minister implied, a prescriptive amendment in terms of the exact scheme that has to be introduced—that is to be left to the Government, presumably after consultation with local authorities. As the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, it is not an amendment that prescribes an electronic or tattooing scheme or any other scheme; it simply establishes the principle of the introduction of a dog registration scheme.
What is more, the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords now allows two years for the process of introducing the scheme. That followed a Government-inspired amendment, which the Opposition did not oppose, in the hope of getting the amendment on to the statute book. Before Conservative Members take note of what the Minister said about electronic schemes, they should remember that the House of Lords decision is a vote in principle for the establishment of a dog registration scheme, not any one variation of that kind. Dog registration is a pro-dog measure. It will promote better and more responsible dog ownership. It will make people think before they obtain a dog.
The Minister argues that a dog registration scheme would be extremely bureaucratic. That is rich coming from a Government who introduced poll tax registration and all the measures that went with it. The Minister also said that dog registration would be expensive.

Mr. Michael Colvin: If, as even I acknowledge, a number of people are reluctant to pay the community charge, why should they be so keen to pay for dog registration?

Mrs. Taylor: I hardly think that the dog registration fee will be as high as the poll tax, although I am sure that Ministers could contrive to make it so if they put their minds to it. They could certainly make it as complex and bureaucratic if they so wished.
The Minister referred to the expense of introducing the scheme and, in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) expressed his


concern about the cost to local authorities of a registration scheme. I think that local authorities will have more reason to worry about coping with the problem of dog control under the amendment suggested by the Minister without the income that a dog registration scheme would provide. All the Minister's proposals will place extra burdens on local authorities and penalise those authorities that take the most action, because they will provide nothing in the way of extra resources to allow the authorities to deal with the problems that the Minister is passing on to them.
We must make a positive decision. Ministers have given us enough promises in the past. The public and the majority of dog owners will not understand if we let the problem drift further. I hope that the House will support the dog registration scheme and the amendment.

Dame Janet Fookes: It gives me no pleasure whatever to be at variance with the Government on the question of dog registration. With regard to the other measures that the Government propose, some are better than others, but I fear that, without dog registration, they will be largely ineffective.
If any measures are to be enforced, it is absolutely essential to establish the ownership of the dog. I do not believe that ownership can he satisfactorily established without registration. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, the Lords amendment—like my earlier new clause—does not seek to lay down details but rather to establish the principle of compulsory dog registration with the local authorities charged with implementing it. That was done purposely because there are different ways of dealing with the details of the scheme.
Perhaps I may describe how I think the scheme would and should work. If we had a computer system, with each dog given a distinctive identification number or mark, dogs would be registered for all time. Whether that is done by collar and tag or whether by collar and tag plus an implant or tattooing is up for consideration during the two-year period that the Lords envisage. The point is that each dog would have its own distinct identity mark. That would make it very much easier for the authorities—particularly dog wardens, who would, I imagine, be the enforcement authority—to check the records and trace the owner.
In that connection, it is interesting to note the experience of Battersea dogs home, which has decided, as a matter of principle and policy, to use the implant system. It has been doing so for some months and there have been some beneficial results for dog owners who have lost their dogs and have been reunited with them very quickly. Apparently, it has also made a great difference to the way in which those who take over stray dogs and give them new homes have felt about the matter. It has made them much more responsible. They know that if they do not look after the dog and if it goes on the streets again, it can be traced back to its owner. That registration scheme in microcosm is in operation on a voluntary basis. It is an extremely interesting scheme, and I urge any hon. Members who are doubtful about the matter to go to Battersea dogs home.
8.45 pm
We also know that it is perfectly simple to set up a computer system to register all dogs. On a voluntary basis, that is happening now among owners who wish to keep control of their animals through the computer scheme organised by the Wood Green animal shelter——

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Janet Fookes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that he is with me on this.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Lady knows that I share her concern for dogs and that, even if I do not necessarily agree with her approach, I respect her commitment. She was courteous enough to allow me to intervene in her speech last time we debated the matter and I asked her what she estimated the cost of registration would be. I recollect that she informed the House that it would be £2·50. Clearly, we shall have to debate these matters again during the next two years, but does she agree that if a system of identification by transponder is introduced, it will cost a great deal more than she suggested? Does she also agree that it will be resented by pensioners with their poodles and widows with their Pekinese who do not particularly want to have electric gadgets inserted into their dogs' ears or necks?

Dame Janet Fookes: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is correct. I said that it would cost about £2·50 and certainly less than £3 for the registration scheme alone. Much will depend on whether the transponder system is taken up and on whether we wish to load on to the registration fee some or all of the costs of the dog wardens, who will presumably act as the enforcement agency. All that is up for negotiation, but the basic cost of a simple computer registration system will be under £3 per dog per year.
There is plenty of scope for deciding what the fee might be. I should not wish the fee to be huge, for reasons that I am sure hon. Members will understand. We do not wish to discourage dog ownership or to place an onerous burden on those who cannot afford it. It would be possible to use the licence fee to introduce a differential system. For example, we might wish to encourage people to spay or neuter their animals, in which case we could charge a lower fee for those who did so and a higher one for those who wished their dogs to remain entire. That is one possibility. If we wished, it would certainly be possible to grant exemptions or charge very small amounts in the case of worthy groups such as people on income support and those with guide dogs or working dogs. Those are all possibilities. The details are not inherent in the scheme proposed in the amendment; it is merely a scheme in principle. I warmly welcome the Lords decision that we should allow two years to give ample scope for discussions with all the interested parties.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that licensing has to be considered in relation to the cost of keeping a dog and that as one cannot keep even a small dog for less than £4 a week—allowing for vets' bills, grooming and food—a licence fee of even £10 or £15 a year is not a vast amount?

Dame Janet Fookes: I entirely agree. However, by accepting the amendment in principle, we are not tied to some vast figure. It is perfectly possible to arrange the scheme as we wish. As it stands, the Government are asking local authorities to take on a great deal without the technical means to bring the scheme about. I am referring to the need for dog wardens, RSPCA inspectors and others to be able to trace owners and lay the responsibility on them.
It is extremely interesting that all those people who have to deal with the problem want registration to enable them to carry out their duties. For example, RSPCA inspectors have told me that they have lost cases in court or have not taken cases to court because they could not establish ownership. Dog wardens have the same problem. The inspectors, the dog wardens, the Association of District Councils and everyone who must work the system wants registration.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that the identification of dogs is important. But what advantage does a registration system have over my plan for the enforcement of the wearing of a collar and identification tag? After all, a tag is a visible means by which anyone can link a dog to its owner. To the extent that an owner may refuse to place a collar and tag on his dog, he might be the same kind of person who would refuse to register in the first place, particularly as the privilege of registration will entail the payment of a fee.

Dame Janet Fookes: That sounds an extremely interesting and ingenious argument. I believe that collars and tags are important, but that system should be linked to a central computer scheme so that, in addition to the tag, there are details on record in a central computer where they are easily available. As I understand it, that is not what the Government are suggesting. If they are suggesting that, it is a different matter, but that is not my understanding of the Government's proposal.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend emphasises the need to establish the ownership of the dog. However, as many people did not pay the old dog licence, as many people do not pay the road fund licence and as many people do not pay the television licence, what guarantee is there that the irresponsible dog owner would pay this tax?

Dame Janet Fookes: Before I answer that, may I invite my hon. Friend to tell me whether he is advocating the abolition of all those licence fees?

Mr. Marshall: The dog licence fee was abolished because the cost of collection was so much greater than the revenue raised. I suspect that my hon. Friend would have similar problems with this cock-eyed scheme.

Dame Janet Fookes: Those who have been in the House for some time and have followed my views on this matter will know that I was one of those who most earnestly urged the Government in those days to increase the dog licence fee. Of course it was not working and I said that it should be reformed. We have now moved on to registration, which is an improvement. However, the scheme did not work when the cost was only 37·5p, simply because it was not worth while for the police or any other authority to press the matter. That would have been ludicrous. However, that is no reason not to have a proper registration scheme now. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has advocated so weak an argument.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Has my hon. Friend considered that this proposition, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the House should never pass a law if that law is likely to be broken by some members of the general public?

Dame Janet Fookes: My hon. Friend, with his legal training, has put it excellently. Moreover, it is clear that we could divide dog owners into various groups. Some will comply with the proposal immediately because it is the law; I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Minister in thinking that that group will be very small. I believe that it will be a large group. Another group of dog owners will register if they are pressed and pushed to do so. With the kind of system that I have in mind, with dog wardens to enforce it, a large number of owners would register. That would leave a relatively small group causing the problems. However, the dog wardens would be more able to concentrate on those problems.
I suspect that in practice people who are disturbed by dogs which bark, bite or run around causing a nuisance, and who find it virtually impossible now to bring a court case against a neighbour because people must live with their neighbours—who would want to bring a court case against a neighbour with all the difficulties that that involves?—will find it easier to tell the local authority that a problem exists. That problem will then be handed over to the dog warden who will deal with it. That would be a very good and practical beneficial arrangement.
In short, there is no substitute for dog registration. I admire their Lordships for taking up the issue and I hope that we shall not be so foolish now as to throw out this amendment which their Lordships have invited us to accept.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I will speak briefly in favour of the Lords amendment, which is backed by more than 80 per cent. of dog owners, by the experience in Northern Ireland and by more than four fifths of the local authorities which were consulted.
I want to deal first with the intervention by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the proposition that a scheme which is incapable of perfect application is better than no scheme at all. There may of course be some people who will not pay a dog registration fee, just as the hon. Gentleman implicitly concede'. that some people do not pay their vehicle excise licence fees. I did not hear him deny that we should have such a vehicle excise licence fee when invited to do so by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). The alternative is a scheme under which the owner pays only if the dog is rounded up as a stray and then collected by the owner. To have a proper control system for dogs, we need more money than that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to state that the question is how we pay for the warden service. We must also consider how the dog is traced back to the owner. At what charge would half the money go to the dog warden service, and not just to the cost of the registration scheme? If we had some way of tracing a stray, caught dog back to its owner, would we be required to have a last-owner liability clause? If not, someone could deny that the dog was still his.

Mr. Hughes: A last-owner liability clause would probably be necessary. On his first point, as he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he will know that the fee in Northern Ireland has been £5. That fee was mentioned in his own written answer on 1 March this year, when he described it—in col. 304 of the Official Report—as part of a system that was "working well". I presume that that is consistent with the accurate point made by the


hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake that it may be necessary to charge £2·50 or perhaps £3 for the cost of administering the scheme. Therefore, even a £5 fee would produce almost an equivalent amount to go to the dog warden service—and, therefore, the local authority's costs in dealing with the problems arising from dogs.
There are some obvious issues with which the country must deal. We must deal, for instance, with the pollution that is caused by dogs. The Government always say that they believe in the polluter paying. The nearest we can get to that—as dogs cannot pay—is the owner paying. The logic of the Government's position is that the owner should pay. There is also the question of noise pollution—we are to have a debate on that on Wednesday. One of the obvious examples is the noise from barking dogs. Whether they are personally or corporately owned, it is much more likely that a responsible attitude would be taken if those who purchased dogs had to pay a charge in advance.
In relation to dogs that roam or stray, or are out of control, I do not dissent from the Minister's propositions that responsibility for stray dogs should be transferred from the police to the local authority, and that the control mechanism should be changed. However, the Lords amendment is not an alternative to his stray dog scheme and his change of scheme.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for the whole of his lifetime there has been a control-of-dogs provision by way of collar and tag, which derives from the Control of Dogs Order 1930. How many prosecutions have there been in those 60 years? The answer is, very few.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No; other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Bruce: The number of prosecutions has gone up since we abolished the dog licence.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but the reality is that they are minimal. That will make only a minimal contribution to linking the dog with the owner, which is the key issue in this debate.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: rose——

Mr. Hughes: I had better give way to the Minister.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There were 188 successful prosecutions last year, which I agree is too few, given the scope of the problem. The reason is that no one body has the duty of enforcing the collar-and-tag requirement. The police and the local authorities have the power to do so; what we are proposing is that local authorities should have the duty. That would give real effect to the measure, and real identification. Everyone will know that it will be enforced.

Mr. Hughes: I wish that that were the case. Although there may be one enforcement agency—the local authority—without additional resources it will not be enforcing the measure. Without the money to employ the people, it will not succeed.
The Minister knows the statistics as well as I do. The example of Bradford—which he cited—shows that 95 per cent. of stray dogs are never recovered by their owners. Only one in six stray dogs that arrive at Battersea dogs' home is recovered by its owner. We will not receive the

money for the local authorities by collecting stray dogs; that can only be done by means of a principle which requires people to pay when they acquire a dog, and which means a much higher revenue income for the local authorities and a much better chance of enforcement thereafter.
9 pm
We have been offered a set of measures from the Government that are limited, minimal and likely to make only a small improvement to our present system. The principled alternative proposed by the Lords allows the mechanisms to be worked out by popular debate. The Government have been once bitten by the measure at the other end of the Palace not many days ago; I should have thought that they would be twice shy, but they have been foolish enough to come back. All that I can say to Conservative Members who have expressed a strong view on this topic is that I hope they make it clear that this Parliament is no one's poodle. I hope that tonight will be the night when Parliament bites back.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The whole House will admire my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) for the way in which she has supported the welfare of animals over the years, and the consistency with which she has been willing to put forward propositions that at times have been unpopular, to the extent that Governments have not followed them through. When she argued for an increase in the dog licence, successive Governments ducked the issue. That is why the 37·5p fee decayed in terms of value and fund raising, although it was not hypothecated to a dog warden service.
It is quite clear that there are a number of problems, one of which is stray dogs. That can be a major problem, as the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) could confirm. In our borough, there have been times when the postal service has been suspended because the number of attacks on postal delivery workers has made it unsafe to let them continue with their work. Many other hon. Members can confirm that, especially in some urban areas, there are problems associated with dogs straying and dogs attacking people. There is also the problem of dog mess. Many people should be more explicit in saying that the number of dogs in cities and towns is too high and needs to be reduced.
The problem lies in trying to link the problems together and whether the RSPCA has hit upon the key. I do not say that it argues that it will solve all problems; however, it argues that registration is the key to everything else. I have doubts about that.
My doubts have been confirmed by the fact that, since I gave a parliamentary answer as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office some months ago, and since I put out a press statement in the early summer, there has riot been a bark in my direction—there has not even been a woof or whimper or even a suggestion that we might get together. It strikes me that, if RSPCA officials think that their arguments are sufficient to convince someone like myself, who is obviously well known to be open-minded, they would have made some approach to me.
Let us consider why RSPCA staff were so reluctant to be involved in direct debate. They have not persuaded the other place that a particular scheme will work. The House of Lords and many other supporters of the amendment say that there is a problem and that, as the RSPCA has said


that registration is the answer, therefore registration is the answer to the problems. Links have not been demonstrated.
Sometimes, people build on my parliamentary answer and say that the Northern Ireland licensing system, which is different from registration, is fulfilling its objectives. That takes us back to sheep worrying. No doubt the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will say that this matter is not just about sheep, because he was one of the Ministers involved in the matter, and that others with Northern Ireland experience can talk also. From the figures for 1984–89, one can demonstrate that very little has changed in terms of the number of dogs that were registered, impounded and destroyed. It is not the answer to most of the problems that concern people in most of the built-up areas of Great Britain.
One should examine the number of prosecutions for animals that have bitten or harmed human beings. I do not think that the RSPCA has put forward its registration scheme as dealing with that issue, except to the extent that it may deal in part with the excessive number of animals. We need to make it unfashionable to own a dog if it is not possible adequately to cope with it and its consequences.

Mr. Roger Gale: It is certainly true—I do not think that, with his experience, my hon. Friend would gainsay it—that, since registration, the number of dog attacks in Northern Ireland has been dramatically reduced. My hon. Friend chides those of us who are in favour of dog registration for not making contact with him. Upon reflection, he will appreciate that we read his parliamentary answer in which he said that the scheme was working well in Northern Ireland. Naturally, we assumed that he would be consistent and join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Bottomley: I look forward to my next invitation to speak in my hon. Friend's constituency—I shall talk about dogs instead of politics. The RSPCA has been briefing Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) saying that, because I as a Minister gave that answer, it copes with problems associated with dogs. However, it does not deal with the primary question of how to get people voluntarily to reduce the number of dogs that they keep in cities and built-up areas.
People need to answer the question of how they will cope with dog mess for a start. Each person who owns a dog needs to be able to answer to their neighbour, especially if that neighbour has children, where dog mess will be laid and whether it will be left there by the owner. People in Bermondsey, Eltham, Manchester and all urban parts of this country need to ask dog owners, "Can you answer that question?"

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question. Does the former Northern Ireland Minister think that it will be an incentive or a disincentive to people who contemplate acquiring a dog that they might have to pay something? If it is a disincentive, it is surely likely to reduce the number of dogs in Eltham, Bermondsey and elsewhere.

Mr. Bottomley: If that is the basic issue for reducing the number of dogs, the RSPCA, the hon. Gentleman, myself

and others should all be saying so out loud, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman at least has the courage to give the answer which the RSPCA has not, according to my knowledge, given up to now.
For the registration scheme to work and for us to be able to track a dog back to its owner, last-owner liability will be necessary. We have had problems with such an approach to cars, and it has proved controversial. I hope that those who say that registration is the answer to these problems will have the guts to say that in public and more often, because I am not aware that they have done so. It has been one of the cosy little exclusions from the public debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the RSPCA has still not learned its lesson in terms of giving half or untrue statistics? One of its advertisements today states:
There are still 500,000 homeless strays roaming our streets".
That figure of 500,000 is taken from an RSPCA report in which the London School of Economics states that the vast majority of such dogs are not homeless strays, but "latch-key dogs" which are let out by their owners.

Mr. Bottomley: Instead of "latch-key" perhaps my hon. Friend should describe them as "poop" dogs—people are embarrassed by dogs' natural functions.
It is not my aim to get at the RSPCA, because even those of us who do not recognise the merits of the registration scheme admire much of the RSPCA's work. Many of us believe that, if the RSPCA had put half the effort into its "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas" campaign, as it has into this, it could have achieved a great deal more in the past few years than it has by managing to persuade some people that the answer to this problem is for the House to pass, in principle, a requirement for registration without going into the necessary details. That would be an undesirable precedent.
May I work towards a conclusion by referring——

Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Bottomley: I had been trying to put forward my view before the hon. Gentleman intervened from a sedentary position.
There are problems that need dealing with. I have dealt with the question of numbers. Many people who keep dogs cannot cope with them adequately. Others can cope, but are not prepared to do so. People may laugh at the pooper scoop idea, but unless people are willing to cope with the consequences of owning a dog in an urban area, they are not facing the consequences of owning a dog. The Kennel Club, dogs clubs and the RSPCA should be saying that clearly, as should pet shop owners.
In various positions of responsibility, I have had to face the issue whether an extra law would be the best way of making a difference. The greatest parallel with this issue is that of drink-driving. I do not want to go into that in depth, but in 1986 it was calculated that there were 2 million occasions per week when men would drive when above the legal limit. Many people said that that was a problem.
In politics, the conventional thing is to go from saying, "There is a problem," to saying, "They should not do it," to saying, "I should not do it", then, " I intend not to do it," to saying, "I do not do it."
The conventional way of approaching that series is to offer legislation, money transfers or exhortation. In practice, we need to get the people who are part of the problem to become part of the solution.
Between 1986 and 1988, without any change in the law, enforcement or sentencing, the number of occasions when people drove above the legal limit was reduced from 2 million to 600,000. That happened as a result of giving information and letting people realise that there were things that they could be doing. What was happening——

Mr. Ernie Ross: Rubbish.

Mr. Bottomley: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting "Rubbish," because it is a fact.
Instead of people believing that the problem could be solved by some wishy-washy system of registration, it is better to approach the dog owners themselves and to ask them whether they are willing to do now what the law and the RSPCA are asking—without even half the cost of a registration scheme.
I hope that the House will support the Government, and that the various stages that were announced last week and those which are set out in the Government amendment will be supported. I also hope that the Lords' approach will be rejected, because it does not give the House the necessary details for a scheme that could cope with 7 million dog owners. The problem needs a better solution than that suggested by the Lords.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Much has rightly been said in the House and in another place about the Northern Ireland scheme and, of course, we have heard something of it again tonight. That is right. When I was junior Minister in the late 1970s I was engaged in the long consultative process that eventually resulted in the order which, it must not be forgotten, was introduced by the Government in 1983.
The Northern Ireland experience is central to the debate. We must examine it closely if we are to convince some of the waverers on the Conservative Benches to accept amendment No. 296. The director of the environmental health service in Belfast city council has already been referred to. He believes that the scheme works well. We also heard from the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 1 March this year that the scheme was working well.
We should consider some of the Government's arguments on the matter. First, they argue that the Northern Ireland scheme has failed to meet the problem of strays because the number of stray dogs put down in the Province has not decreased. Yet the Government seem not to listen to the evidence provided by the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which reported a dramatic reduction in roaming packs of dogs and strays on the streets. Indeed, Robert Wilson, the director of USPCA, has pointed out that although absolute numbers—this is where Conservative Members are confused—of impounded dogs have shown little sign of falling, wardens are collecting from a reduced pool of strays on the streets. In any case, to concentrate solely on strays can be misleading.
The main thrust for change in Northern Ireland came from the Ulster Farmers Union lobby, and rightly so. A great number of sheep were being killed by dogs and it was a worrying factor.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way because of the time factor. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Many instances of sheep worrying involved dogs owned by hitherto so-called responsible owners. Identifying the owners was a large part of the problem. Since the introduction of licensing, the Ulster Farmers Union has reported a reduction in livestock worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will be aware of that. That was despite a growth in the sheep flock from 1 million in 1983 when the order was introduced to 2·3 million sheep and livestock in 1989.

Mr. John D. Taylor: A 100 per cent. increase.

Mr. Pendry: As my right hon. Friend says, a 100 per cent. increase.
If the Government have not listened to the environmental health officers who administer the scheme, the USPCA—which deals with some of the problems caused by dogs—or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of which the traffic division has noted a 25 per cent. reduction in road accidents involving dogs since the introduction of licensing, who have they been talking to and listening to?
The Government's main failure is in recognising the central ethos of the Northern Ireland scheme, which is a positive approach to dog ownership. The scheme seeks to support and sustain a package of comprehensive measures with the general aim of encouraging responsible dog ownership. It has at its roots a dog licensing scheme. That welcome approach is encapsulated in the amendment. The Government propose to introduce nothing further than a handful of provisions for dealing with stray dogs after an offence has been committed. In other words, they seek to deal with the problem once it exists. The approach of the amendment is to suggest a scheme that would facilitate a host of realistic measures to encourage widespread responsible dog ownership before an offence takes place.
The RSPCA sees registration as an essential element in introducing health and welfare programmes, neutering advice and effective enforcement. Furthermore, the knowledge that their dog is registered should have a beneficial effect on owners' treatment and care of their dogs. They will know that the dog could be traced back to them and that they could be held responsible. That would therefore reduce the risk of dogs being allowed to stray or to cause a nuisance in the first place. We should adopt the course tonight.
The Government have manifestly failed to listen to those with first-hand experience of the problem in Northern Ireland, but have they sought the opinion of the 200-odd authorities up and down the country that already run dog warden schemes? If my local authority, Tameside, is anything to go by, however, the Government have failed in that respect as well. If they had sought such opinion, the Government would have learned that the lack of resources available to Tameside and other authorities to finance


their dog wardens is severely hampering their efforts. That is why my local authority and most others will support our efforts tonight.
The Government argue that the proposed registration scheme is an inefficient means of raising revenue for dog control services. Their amendments, however, provide no means of financing their proposals other than leaving it to local councils to find the funds in their already overstretched budgets.
In truth, the Government do not see the problem in the same way as the rest of society. The amendment is supported by those at the sharp end who must deal with the problem caused by the absence of responsible dog ownership. The only similar scheme operating in the United Kingdom is a success.
The Government should not be dragged along by the collar when it comes to introducing a dog registration scheme. They should appreciate the force of the argument put forward by those who know the extent of the problem at the sharp end. They should withdraw their amendment and promote a dog registration scheme in the interests of all responsible owners, local authorities and the public.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Butterfill. If the hon. Gentleman should like to speak from a sitting position I will understand.

Mr. John Butterfill: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak from a sedentary position. I should explain that my present indisposition arises from a minor operation to my left ankle and not from being savaged by a particular breed of dog.
I address the House as a member of the general council of management of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. I must stress, however, that I am speaking in a purely personal capacity and not on behalf of the PDSA. As a matter of principle, the PDSA does not take a political stance on any issue, unlike some other societies, although it often works in close co-operation with the RSPCA and other animal organisations.
The PDSA confines its activities to providing veterinary care to those people whose financial circumstances would otherwise prevent them from obtaining such care for their animals. As such, it does a great deal of work particularly with small animals, but the bulk of its work is concerned with the care of dogs.
It is interesting to consider why dogs come into the care of the PDSA in order to assess its relevance to our discussion. Dogs are often brought for medical attention to the PDSA because of ignorance about how to care for a dog. Another reason may well be the poverty of the owner. Poverty often dissuades people from having their dogs neutered—a desirable method of keeping the dog population down. I believe that neutering would be a far more effective means of controlling the dog population than the deterrent posed by the cost of the fee. The only way in which to reduce the dog population is to prevent dogs breeding.
Dogs also receive care from the PDSA because of problems arising from lack of inoculation—another desirable treatment that prevents disease in the inoculated

dog and the spread of disease to other dogs. Dogs also receive treatment because of simple neglect, injury or other infections caused as a result of being strays.
It is important to consider the problems that arise, to see whether the registration scheme might have the effect of remedying some of them. Certainly, there is rarely a suggestion that there is a problem in identifying the owners of fierce dogs. If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it should be mandatory for a dog to carry a tag were taken up, and if that were enforceable by a responsible agency, that problem would be overcome.
I do not see how registration will prevent the problem of dogs straying. Dogs stray for all sorts of reasons, often simply because their owners do not take sufficient care of them. I do not see how that would be remedied by registration. In addition, I do not see how registration would prevent the fouling of public places, which will surely be prevented only by owners being more responsible for their dogs' care.
The cost of the scheme such as that proposed by the RSPCA is far greater than has been recognised tonight. I have studied the report by the London School of Economics, published in 1989 for the RSPCA, which states that the total annual cost of such a scheme would be about £40 million if the cost of wardens were included.
If we accept that the dog population is about 7 million and allow perhaps two years' inflation on that figure, it works out at about £7 a dog, but that would be only if all dogs were registered and all owners paid. I am sure that Opposition Members would wish to exempt the elderly, the blind and those in receipt of state benefits, which might reduce the number paying by half.

Mr. Sayeed: rose——

Mr Butterfill: I should get on.
If such exemptions were to be made, it would halve the number of people paying for the scheme and double the cost to £14 or £15. In Northern Ireland about 60 per cent. of owners fail to register, which could double the cost again and we could be talking about an effective cost of £30 a dog.

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be quite clear on this—I believe that the figures that my hon. Friend just quoted from the LSE report were based on a 60 per cent. compliance rate, not a 100 per cent. rate, as he seemed to intimate.

Mr. Butterfill: The report assumed a compliance rate that was considerably worse than that experienced in Northern Ireland. That was one reason why I questioned the figure.
I am worried that we would need an army of bureaucrats to enforce such a scheme. We would need clerks, wardens and inspectors—the latter would presumably need powers to enforce their activities. Would hon. Members be prepared to grant inspectors the right of entry into people's homes if those inspectors suspected that an unregistered dog was being kept there? I do not think that that would be particularly attractive to those concerned about civil rights.
I believe that the Government have the right answer. Their proposals for the seizure of strays and their delivery to the authorities, for the proper enforcement by responsible authorities of collar and tag, for the right of disposal of stray dogs to the finder or elsewhere if they are


unclaimed and to give local authorities powers to enforce byelaws on fouling are right. My own local authority, Bournemouth borough council, has made vigorous representations about its need to have the right to produce new byelaws to deal with the fouling problem, which is particularly prevalent in Bournemouth. The other proposals that the Government have suggested that they may bring forward, such as muzzling to deal with fierce dogs, are to he welcomed. I await, as I am sure do other hon. Members, the results of the Government's consultations, which are to finish on 15 November.
There is another remedy that would perhaps do more than anything else to solve the problems that we experience with dogs—a voluntary neutering scheme for dogs. The heart of the problem is that we have too many dogs and many of them behave badly. Neutering makes fierce dogs less aggressive, male dogs much less likely to stray in search of female company and reduces the unwanted dog population. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister were inclined to consider that as a possibility, I am sure that the PDSA would welcome it.

Miss Kate Hoey: I wholeheartedly support the Lords amendment and I hope that there will now be an end to the long discussions on this issue. I pay tribute to the work not only of the RSPCA, but of an organisation that has been campaigning on this issue for a great deal longer—the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. When the issue was not as popular as it is now, many people put their heads over the parapet, but they were laughed down. The change in public opinion over many years owes much to the work and the campaigns of many organisations, not least the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. The licence fee should never have been abolished; it should have been increased. It was not, and we are paying for that.
I want to make a brief point about Northern Ireland. People will be interested to know that many hon. Members have suddenly taken an interest in Northern Ireland's handling of the issue. There is not usually so much discussion about Northern Ireland matters. In fact, the scheme has been successful, as all responsible opinion will confirm. If the Minister believes that it has been unpopular and unproductive, why does not he propose abolishing the scheme in Northern Ireland? He will not do that because he knows that the people of Northern Ireland want the scheme and that it has been successful.
I direct most of my remarks at a group of people who have been greatly affected by dogs—the 110,000 postmen and women who have been attacked many times while doing their jobs. Together with newspaper delivery boys, meter readers and so on, they visit every address in the country. The figures clearly show an increase in dog attacks during the past two years. It is astonishing that in 1989 dog attacks on postmen and women increased by 9·5 per cent. over the previous year—7,717 were attacked in the course of their duties. Those are only the recorded attacks, and they are in addition to an 18 per cent. increase in 1987.
Not only do such dog attacks cause trauma, misery and distress, but they result in many lost working days. Indeed, the number of lost working days between 1987 and 1988 increased by 45 per cent. Dog attacks were directly responsible for 4,711 lost working days—[Interruption.] I

know that some hon. Members may not want to hear the figures, but they are important statistics that show the number of dog attacks on working people. Those lost working days represented 15 per cent. of all days lost through sickness and injury in the Post Office service—and they are only the reported attacks. Hon. Members should appreciate that many people do not report them.
The Union of Communication Workers has been campaigning to highlight the incidence of dog attacks. Many jokes are made about them, but in one incident a postwoman in Gloucester had her ear bitten off, and in another, a postman was so badly injured that he was compelled to seek early retirement and will need medical attention for the rest of his life.
I bet that most of the letters received on the subject by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House come from women. They have campaigned for many years, complaining that whenever they allow their children to use parks, they return with the mess left by dog faeces all over them—and I am sure that it is usually women who have to clear it up, not men.
Mothers on housing estates in inner city areas are terrified to let their children play outside because of the danger posed by roaming dogs. Unless a link can be made between a dog and its owner, such problems cannot be controlled. All the measures in the world will not work unless there is a registration scheme. If we want to enforce such a scheme, we can—in the same way as we enforce television licensing and vehicle registration, which the Government take very seriously.
The Government—if not the majority of Conservative Members in this case—take a laissez-faire, do-nothing approach. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members who will vote tonight to examine their consciences and ask themselves how many more children must be bitten, how many more postmen and postwomen attacked, and how many other members of the public must suffer before they realise that their vote can make the difference and will really matter tonight? It is not just a question of voting with one's party but of voting in the way that one knows one's constituents want.
I hope that the Government realise that they are isolated on this issue. Dog ownership is not a right but a privilege, and with that privilege goes responsibility to the dog and to the rest of society. Just as one cannot walk into a garage, buy a car and drive it away without proof that one can drive, so one should not be able to walk into a shop and buy a dog without proving that one can look after it and without registering it. None of the Government's measures will work unless there is at the top a simple administrative measure for a national registration scheme. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to end the debate and vote to introduce a dog registration scheme, to make people's lives safer and dog owners a lot happier.

Mr. Gale: The Government had the wisdom to introduce a dog registration scheme in Northern Ireland and, contrary to some of the information that the House has been offered this evening, that scheme has worked. The chief warden for Belfast, who has been in the House all day, has informed many right hon. and hon. Members that, since the introduction of a registration scheme in Northern Ireland, the incidence of sheep worrying has fallen dramatically, as have the number of traffic accidents caused by dogs and the number of attacks by dogs on people, particularly children.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Do all these good things that have happened in Northern Ireland have anything to do with the fact that there is a charge for a licence—there is no identification on the dog—or is it because they introduced a dog warden scheme at the same time?

Mr. Gale: I was going to come to that. This afternoon an hon. Friend challenged me with that argument saying, "Ah, yes, but that is because of the warden scheme: it has nothing to do with dog registration." Again, I am assured by the chief dog warden, who I suspect knows a little about this subject, that dog registration needed to be on the statute book. Non-registration had to be an offence to give the powers that exist in Northern Ireland some teeth. Without registration those powers are ineffective.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister is in the unhappy position of having to salute a flag nailed to the mast some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which has been fluttering there in tatters ever since.
I have supported the cause of dog registration consistently since we began to discuss it shortly after I entered the House. I shall support it again in the Lobby tonight.
I have listened with great care to the Minister's arguments and read with great care the amendments tabled by the Government. All amendments depend upon identification of the dog if they are to work, and identification must be dependent on some form of registration scheme. I do not accept the Minister's argument that a tag round the neck is sufficient identification. There is a proper and sensible way to do it.
The Minister said that registration would lead to awful bureaucracy. I am a fervent supporter of the community charge. I find no problem whatever with a registration system that requires more than 20 million charge payers to be registered, so I find even less problem with a system that would require about 7·5 million dogs to be registered.
This morning, an interviewer asked me whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that the introduction of what will inevitably become known as the dog tax is unpopular. I had to say yes; it will be unpopular. Once people are asked to pay for something as opposed to voting for it or talking about it they will not like it, but that does not mean that it is not right or worth while. For those reasons, I know of no reason for going back on my commitment to a dog registration scheme.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Northern Ireland experience is that registration did not prove unpopular. About 20,000 dogs were registered before the new dogs order was passed. Once it was introduced and the fee went up to £5, the number of dogs registered went up to 80,000, which is four times the previous figure.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have heard much about the fee this evening. Hon. Members who believe in dog registration are talking about a funded system, on the "user pays" principle—something in which I thought the Government believed. The Minister is putting forward an unfunded system, which will ultimately have to be funded by local authorities. The Minister will say that the scheme will be funded through rate support grant and he may go on to say that it will be fully funded. I doubt that very much.
I fear that if the Government amendments are passed and the Lords amendment is defeated, it will be open

season for every local authority to increase its community charge because it will be required to provide a dog warden system which no one else is paying for. I shudder to think what increase in community charge the socialist republic of Lambeth is likely to levy to provide wardens under the scheme which, as it stands before us tonight, is unfunded.
I believe that the system devised by the Lords and the two-year consultation period is a workable answer and I offer my hon. Friend the Minister my services to seek ways through the maze to a solution.
I hope and believe that many of my hon. Friends, on reflection, will join other hon. Members to support the Lords amendment and see this scheme through once and for all.

Mr. John McAllion: There have been two main objections tonight to a dog registration scheme: first, that it is unworkable in practical terms and unenforceable; and secondly, that it cannot be made to work because irresponsible dog owners will refuse to register and thereby render the scheme ineffective. I have never found that argument convincing. I find it even less convincing after listening carefully to the Minister's alternative to registration.
9.45 pm
Let me take, for example, the Minister's proposal that new powers should be given to local authorities to levy fees on owners who are irresponsible enough to abandon their dogs in public places. Earlier, the Minister told us that these are the same irresponsible owners who would refuse to pay a licence fee and register their dogs. They are owners who have failed properly to look after their dogs and abandoned them. We do not know the extent of their irresponsibility. These owners may abuse and undernourish their dogs. However, the Minister expects us to believe that they would trot down to the kennels, own up to their negligence and accept the imposition of a heavy fee by the council. The Minister expects us to believe that they would co-operate in poop-scoop schemes, obey leash laws and ensure that there were identification tags on their dogs' collars. That scenario is utterly incredible. I am surprised that the Minister had the effrontery to put it before the House.
The Government cannot have it both ways. Irresponsible owners cannot be prayed in aid if one rubbishes a dog registration scheme and then conveniently be ignored when a case is made for one's own package of measures. That is being two-faced and hypocritical. The irresponsible will always seek to flout the law. However, that can never be an argument for refusing to pass laws in the first place. If we ever accepted that principle, hon. Members might as well pack their bags and go home.
The other objection to registration is that it would be costly and bureaucratic. What, however, is the Government's alternative to registration? A new range of duties would be imposed on local authorities. Dog warden schemes would give effect to the new duties. There would be what the consultation paper called a new local government finance system to fund the scheme. With breathtaking effrontery, the consultation paper. referred to the new financing system as "simple" and "effective". I remind the House that it was referring to the poll tax. In Scotland, England and Wales the poll tax has been proved to be enormously bureaucratic, horrendously costly and spectacularly ineffective. How can the Government, who


gave us the poll tax and promised that dog control measures would be funded by means of the poll tax, dare to object to a registration scheme on the ground that it would be costly and bureaucratic? It makes no sense.
The case for action is unanswerable. The question that divides the House is, what kind of action? The Government are seeking to slide out of their clear responsibilities on dog control measures. They want to place that duty on local authorities, to place the burden of financing it on local taxpayers and to allow breeders and owners to sidestep their responsibilities. They want also to abandon their own newly adopted principle of making the polluter pay. That is entirely unacceptable.
This is not a joking matter, as some Conservative Members make it appear. It is not just a question of the tonnes of faeces and gallons of urine that are deposited in our streets, parks and playgrounds every year. It is not just the cost of coping with stray dogs, in both financial terms and in terms of the suffering that has to be endured by those animals. It is also for me the far more frightening prospect of the growing threat to human safety that is posed by the increasing number of dangerous breeds of dogs that are now kept as domestic pets.
The House knows that American pit bull terriers have killed, and killed again, in the United States and that those animals are coming into this country in increasing numbers. The House will know, too, that one of my constituents, 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, was savaged to death by two rottweiler dogs just over a year ago and that there is no control whatever over the ownership of dangerous breeds of dogs. The House must understand that unless effective action is taken by us, there will he more attacks and, tragically, more deaths.
No one wants the tragedy that befell my constituent to happen to anyone else, least of all Kelly's parents, Veronica and John Lynch, who have campaigned ceaselessly for stricter control of dogs. Central to their campaign has been the demand for a national dog registration scheme. That aim is endorsed by the majority of agencies concerned with the welfare of animals, by almost all local authorities and overwhelmingly by public opinion. We heard earlier that it is about to be endorsed by the European Community, and in the form of the Lords amendment it has already been endorsed by the other place.
Will the House persist in alone setting its face against the tide running irreversibly in favour of dog registration? It is no longer a question of whether we should have a registration scheme but when we shall have one. All reasonable argument and informed opinion tells us that the House must act now to introduce dog registration. I beg hon. Members who seriously have the welfare of their constituents at heart to vote for the Lords amendment and to ensure that this is the moment when the House faces up to its responsibilities.

Sir William Shelton: I must refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), for whom I have high respect. She is my neighbour in Lambeth, but she did not make the link between the wretched attacks on postmen, of which I am quite aware, and whether a dog is registered. She would agree that a registered or unregistered dog is just as likely to attack a postman or anyone else. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to urine and faeces, but a registered or unregistered dog behaves in the same way.

I have two golden retrievers, which presented us with eight puppies a month or two ago. Our family has had dogs since it started being a dog family. [Laughter] I have had dogs all my life, and my family has too. I was deeply attracted by the registration scheme proposed by the RSPCA. It seemed a good solution until I started looking at it and discussing it with dog owners. Let me tell the House why I have changed my mind and propose to support the Government.
We have heard vast differences in the suggested cost of dog registration. Whatever it is, it would certainly cost quite a lot, especially for those who are less well off and who must bear the cost of a dog. Hon. Members have suggested that registration would be low. I suspect that it would be, and more dogs would be put down and abandoned in the first six months or a year following its introduction. People would say, "I cannot afford this dog," and push it out of the door on to the motorway. That would be a danger.
The main question is, what is the purpose of a national or local register of some 7 million dogs and their owners? The answer if therest, to provide a living for those who run it. Secondly, of their is an implant in the dog or a tattoo on its ear, yet all that is read from it is a number, a national register is essential to link the dog with its owner and the owner's name and address. If a dog carries an implant or a tattoo, there must inevitably be a national dog registration scheme.
I should add a third answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) said that she believed in a register because—I hope that I am not quoting her incorrectly—every dog should have its own identity. She caught my attention with those words. I put it to her that the identity of a dog can come just as well from a collar and tag as from a number in some computer in some part of the country. The true identity of a dog comes from the loving home where it lives.
If all dogs wear collars and tags in public places, instead of an implant or tattoo, and there are council-appointed dog wardens—as the Government recommend—to enforce the wearing of collars and tags, we do not need a national register to link a dog's number with its owner. It is essential only if dogs have a tattoo or implant.
There are many advantages of a dog wearing a collar and tag rather than having a tattoo or implant. First, all dogs in public places should, by law, have a collar and tag, and many do. Secondly, it is much quicker and easier to identify a dog that breaks into one's garden or bites one's leg or a dog that bites a postman if it has a tag on its collar, because one can easily see who owns it. If it has a tattoo or implant, I imagine that one would need a machine to read the information. If a dog wearing a tag fouls a pavement, one can see who owns it—one need not go to some computer bank. That means that it costs the owner less and we do not have a bureaucracy.
What are the disadvantages of not having a register? There is one major disadvantage. A collar can be removed or transferred to another dog—I accept that—while an implant or tattoo cannot be removed without some difficulty by the owner. However, I can see few occasions when that is important. If a dog has been abandoned deliberately, the sort of owner who would do that would probably not have registered it anyway. If he registered it and wanted to abandon it, he would probably kill it. A latch-key dog would have a collar and tag. The problem


about being able to remove a collar and tag seems, therefore, to be relatively unimportant. That is why I shall support the Government.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Many arguments for and against have been put in the debate, but I think that I should bring the House back to what we are discussing—the Lords amendments and the principle of a dog registration scheme. Many hon. Members have put forward sincere and valid points about how a scheme would operate and its various costs. But we should come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes)—we need a framework for dealing with what we all recognise is a growing problem.
The difference between the proposal in the Lords amendments and the Government's amendments is that, although the Government's amendments are welcome in what they set out to do, they do not tackle the main problem of increasing difficulties and problems that come from irresponsible dog owners. It is worth emphasising the point made by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The kind of problems associated with a registration scheme are exactly the problems that the Government's proposals would have—there is no real difference in terms of the practicalities.
Dog registration provides a framework that would allow dog wardens to intervene when dogs cause a problem. That is why organisations such as the Police Federation strongly support a system that involves a framework for enforcement.
Although the Government's proposals will place far more responsibility on local councils, they do not entail the provision of any extra funding to allow councils to carry out their duties. Registration would provide some income—the amount depending, as I said, on the kind of scheme that is agreed after due debate. For example, where local authorities provide dog wardens, that little extra income could be used to increase the amount of education about dog ownership and could be of benefit in such ways.

Mr. Colvin: It has been suggested by those who support the dog registration scheme that there should be a system of exemptions for old-age pensioners. If that happens, every granny and granddad in the country will become the family's dog owner and income from the dog registration scheme will fall to nothing.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question again propoposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Mr. Morley: The Lords amendment proposes a two-year period during which valid points such as that made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) can be worked out. I argue that the fees charged under the dog registration scheme could be used to encourage positive elements in terms of dog ownership. I do not doubt that there will be evasion of a dog registration scheme, just as there is evasion of any law that is passed. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, it is not a valid argument against a scheme that is of benefit to the community to say that some may evade it.
The concept of registration is becoming increasingly widespread. This Bill introduces the concept of registration for all food outlets. It is not valid for the Government to argue that registration is bureaucratic when, for acceptable and understandable reasons, they are introducing registration schemes elsewhere in this and other Bills.
Northern Ireland and just about every European country have registration and licence schemes, and those who travel abroad regularly will know that European countries have far less of a dog problem than we have. I know that many hon. Members here represent rural areas. Organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association are strongly in favour of the scheme, given the experience in Northern Ireland, which was outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who referred to the fall-off in sheep and stock worrying since the licensing scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland. Organisations responsible for the countryside endorse that view and argue strongly for a scheme.
Many members of the public are puzzled as to why the Government continue to oppose dog registration when so many other people are firmly in favour of it. This is not really a political issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave the House a list of the supporters of a dog registration scheme, ranging from the women's institutes to the British Police and Services Canine Association.
The Lords carried the amendment by an overwhelming majority and hon. Members will know from their mailbags of the tremendous popular support that the scheme has. In national independent opinion polls, it has been found that 94 per cent. of the public are in favour of a scheme and only 3 per cent. against, while 80 per cent. of dog owners are in favour. I have received hundreds of letters—mainly from dog owners—in favour of a dog registration scheme and only two against. This is a popular proposal and it will be well received by the public if we agree tonight on the principle of such a scheme.
The councils are in favour of a scheme, including the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils. One of my councils, Conservative-controlled Glanford borough council, wrote to me asking for my support for a registration scheme, which I was pleased to give.
We know that all the animal welfare and veterinary organisations are in favour of such a scheme and we know that action must be taken. We can have an honest debate about the details of the scheme. There is a debate about tattooing versus implants and collars and tags. All those issues have positive and negative sides and we can work them out in the interim period laid down by the amendment.
I held meetings in my constituency with dog breeders and at one point had 10 alsatians in the front room with them. Dog breeders have a successful registration scheme which operates well and, I suspect, makes a great deal of money for those who administer it. Why cannot we extend that successful dog registration scheme to all dogs? If it can work for pedigrees, there is no reason why the concept cannot work on a wider scale.
The Lords amendment also has positive advantages for responsible owners. Under a national scheme, those who lose their dogs will have a far greater chance of finding


them again. As I said, inoculations and neutering can be encouraged through a registration scheme by offering discounts to those who carry those things out for the benefit of their dogs and of the community at large.
The clinching argument in favour of a registration scheme is that it will go a long way towards deterring casual dog ownership. It will deter people who do not think carefully about the responsibilities of dog ownership in terms of the animals's welfare and their responsibility to the wider community. Dog ownership is for life. A registration scheme would benefit the community and responsible owners and it would act as a framework to crack down on the irresponsible owners who have caused so many problems. Above all, the scheme is a step forward and would deal with the problem which is not addressed by the Government's amendment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: With the leave of the House, I rise briefly to reply to the debate because I sense that the House wants to bring the matter to a conclusion.
The debate has shown that we are unanimous in the belief that there are too many irresponsible dog owners and too many stray dogs. Supporters of dog registration have told us that such a scheme is essential. It has become something of a totem because very few reasons have been advanced in the debate for making such a scheme an essential component of any solution to the problem.
If the identification of dogs is necessary, how can that be better achieved by registration than by our proposals for enforcing the collar and tag requirement? We propose a simple, visible and direct way of linking a dog to its owner and we shall enforce it. There is already a maximum £2,000 fine for those failing to comply. We shall place a reauirement on district councils to enforce the collar and tag provision.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend read the report produced by the London School of Economics, which was commissioned by the RSPCA? Has he received letters, as I have, from constituents who would like a registration scheme and would pay between £5 and £10? On a 60 per cent. compliance rate with no money off for the old or disabled, such a scheme would cost £29 for simple tattoo or £40 for a transponder to register a dog in the first year and a fee of £11 afterwards. Is my hon. Friend aware that only £3·50 would go towards the warden service?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I referred to fees earlier. Nothing has altered my view that the higher the fee, the greater will be the disincentive for irresponsible owners to comply with the scheme. Although doubtless some owners would still fail to place a collar and tag on their dogs, exactly the same people would fail to register in the first place, especially as registration would entail the payment of a considerable annual fee.
We have also been told in the debate that electronic implants may not be necessary, although such an approach underlay the study by the London School of Economics—published last year—which assumed that dogs would have electronic implants, which would then have to be linked up to a central computer. We certainly have not been told how such a scheme would be run without electronic implants. Presumably a central computer would still he required. It is still a clumsy way of identifying a dog if it has to be linked up with a central computer, which will then give the name and address of the last registered owner. If identification is a requirement—and I agree that

it is—I insist that it would be better and more simply done by means of the enforcement of the existing collar and tag provisions.
The costs of national registration are not simply the costs of the electronic equipment. The real costs lie in tracing the owners who have moved, itinerant owners and dogs that have been given away, traded or sold; deregistering dogs that have died; and attempting to find owners who have moved or gone abroad. All that is entirely unproductive. I want the money and resources to be spent on the ground, dealing with the real problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) mentioned a 60 per cent. compliance figure. That would mean accepting nearly 3 million unregistered dogs. Almost by definition, those dogs would belong to the irresponsible owners who create the problem in the first place. That is the very reverse of the "polluter pays" principle that underlies the rest of the Bill. I want the effort directed towards solving the problems of strays.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the money that the RSPCA spent on its advertising campaign would have been far better spent on animal welfare and education? My hon. Friend has referred to stray dogs. In my opinion, dog registration would lead to more strays, and would increase the heap of dead dogs on the RSPCA poster rather than diminish it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I take my hon. Friend's point. It has been pointed out to me that each full-page advertisement taken in today's press costs about the equivalent of employing a dog warden for a year. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view that some of that money might have been better spent, if not on employing dog wardens, at least on joining us in helping to educate dogs' owners and to give them a sense of responsibility.

Dame Janet Fookes: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I want to direct our efforts towards solving the problems that exist on the ground. That is why we are laying down specific duties to require district councils to collect and hold stray dogs and to keep them for at least seven days. Owners collecting dogs will pay a fee, not just to cover the cost of kennelling but as a contribution towards the warden costs. That is the embodiment of the "polluter pays" principle, and that is why I ask the House to disagree with the Lords on dog registration.
10.15 pm
Let us dispose of the irrelevance, complexity and expense of trying to enforce a national registration scheme. I ask the House to vote for a positive, specific and well-targeted package of measures to deal with the problems caused by dogs and a minority of irresponsible owners.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 271.

Division No. 344]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Amess, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Arnold, Sir Thomas






Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Atkins, Robert
Grist, Ian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Ground, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Grylls, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hague, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen, Nicholas
Hill, James


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Jack, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


Gardiner, George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael





Maude, Hon Francis
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shersby, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Miller, Sir Hal
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) 


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stern, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stevens, Lewis


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Price, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, Sir William
Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Battle, John
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Beckett, Margaret
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beith, A. J.
Buckley, George J.


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard


Bellotti, David
Callaghan, Jim


Bendall, Vivian
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.






Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gregory, Conal


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clay, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Hannam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Crowther, Stan
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cummings, John
Holt, Richard


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darling, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Hoyle, Doug


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Doran, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dover, Den
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dunn, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ingram, Adam


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Irving, Sir Charles


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Janner, Greville


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Fearn, Ronald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Kennedy, Charles


Fisher, Mark
Kilfedder, James


Flannery, Martin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Flynn, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Fookes, Dame Janet
Knox, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David


Foster, Derek
Lamond, James


Foulkes, George
Leighton, Ron


Franks, Cecil
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fraser, John
Lewis, Terry


Fry, Peter
Litherland, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Gale, Roger 
Livsey, Richard


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Loyden, Eddie


George, Bruce
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McAvoy, Thomas


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian


Gordon, Mildred
McFall, John


Gould, Bryan 
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Graham, Thomas
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McKelvey, William


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
McLeish, Henry 





Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sayeed, Jonathan


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sillars, Jim


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot 
Summerson, Hugo


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Murphy, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


O'Brien, William
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N.


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pendry, Tom
Watts, John


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn 
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Raffan, Keith
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wolfson, Mark


Reid, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Richardson, Jo
Wray, Jimmy


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Ray Powell.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rossi, Sir Hugh

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government amendments in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 76

STATUTORY NUISANCES AND INSPECTIONS THEREFOR

Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 80, line 45, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (5)".

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The group of amendments headed by amendment No. 174, which we are about to consider, contains amendment (a), which will be moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Perhaps we can hear from the hon. Gentleman later about his amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 81, line 18, at end insert
and, where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to it by a person living within its area, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment in line 4, at end insert
'and where the complaint is against the local authority to ensure that the investigation is independent of the department of the authority complained of and that a person independent of the local authority is authorised to take further proceedings if the investigation reveals grounds for further action.'.
Hon. Members may not have noticed, but page 204 of the Bill, schedule 14, part III, repeals sections 91 to 99 of the Public Health Act 1936. Section 99 of that Act is a piece of legislation that I use more often at my advice bureaux than any other public health legislation. It enables a person to take proceedings in a magistrates court when the state and condition of a house makes it unfit and prejudicial to the health of its occupants.
Generally, section 99 is used by a health authority, a local authority, to take proceedings against a private landlord or, more rarely, against a housing association. But in a case decided in Cardiff Crown court some years ago—Crown v. Cardiff city council—it was decided that a local authority which was a health authority could not take proceedings against itself.
I shall illustrate the injustice of this to tenants of local authority accommodation which is leaky, full of condensation or in other ways a threat to their health—perhaps because it is full of cockroaches—by describing the state of housing in London some years ago. A large part of accommodation in London was owned, controlled and managed by the Greater London council. I am sorry to say that much of that accommodation, whether under Labour or Conservative administration, was in poor condition. My local authority, Lambeth borough council, like many in London, would regularly issue summonses under section 99 against the Greater London council as the housing authority. In those circumstances, the court could make an order against the housing authority stating that it must carry out the necessary repairs, impose a fine on it and, most important of all to the person suffering poor housing conditions, award compensation of up to £2,000.
When the GLC estates were forced over to the London metropolitan authorities by the Government, those people in poor accommodation—which had a leaky roof or had been under-repaired so that it affected their health—had no recourse in law.
For some years it has been legally impossible to get the housing authority to issue a summons against itself. Therefore, we have to send people to the magistrates court to issue their own summons against the housing authority under section 99. They are helped in that by law centres, but as a result of Government restraints on local government expenditure, some law centres—notably three of them in Wandworth where there are plenty of housing problems—are being closed. Other law centres such as those in Bradford have been under threat or closed. People have to issue the summons against the Housing authority themselves and there is no legal aid because it is a prosecution, not a defence.
The Bill places a duty upon a local authority to investigate a complaint about a statutory nuisance. It is true that under clause 79, an individual who is aggrieved by a statutory nuisance can issue a summons. That is the current position, and that is what I am trying to change. There should be equal justice for all tenants. It should not matter whether a person is a tenant of a local authority, a housing association or a private landlord. If water is coming through the roof, if there is what is called a cold bridge, and if the health of the parents and children is likely to suffer because of poor housing conditions, there should be no difference in the quality of representation and justice simply because of the identity of the landlord.
The effect of the amendment would be that a local authority would have a duty not only to investigate a statutory nuisance but, if proceedings were then justified, to appoint a third party to prosecute that local authority because, as a result of the Cardiff case, it cannot prosecute itself. It is even more important that the amendment be accepted because, as a result of the changes in the Bill, the ability of a magistrates court to award compensation for failure to repair is lessened.
It is an important amendment that puts the council tenant back into the same position as private and housing association tenants. It restores the rights held by many former GLC tenants before the transfer of the GLC estates. It is a sensible amendment that would ensure the even-handed treatment of all tenants. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish briefly to support amendment (a). I do so in what I believe to be the accurate belief that I represent a greater proportion of council tenants than any other hon. Member who represents an English seat. This is an enormously significant amendment for the great proportion of my constituents who live in council properties. I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I think that we have approached the amendment from the same position.
I was a practising lawyer before I came to the House, and the Public Health Act, especially section 99, provided an easily available and quick remedy to deal with repairs to domestic property. I was the recipient of representations from local law centres, to which many people go for advice and which use that remedy. For the regular stream of people who come to my surgery, as they do to the surgery of the hon. Member for Norwood and, no doubt, the surgeries of many other hon. Members, including Conservative Members, the only way to get the local authority to do anything is to prosecute. Unless it is taken to court, nothing happens. The windows remain broken, the ceilings leak, the pipes are unsafe and the home is a danger to health—it is a public health issue.
I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister, and I did not serve on the Committee. I hope that he will welcome the amendment. It may need a drafting change, but fundamentally it would have two effects. First, it would give all local authority tenants the right to take action in a simple and effective way and to get a quick remedy by way of compensation. Secondly, and more importantly, it would give equity to people who, possibly coincidentally, happen to be council tenants. They may have become local authority tenants only because there was no other landlord in their area to whom they could go. Why should they be adversely affected compared with private or housing association tenants when the damage to their health may be exactly the same? I hope that the Minister will make a positive response.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I also want to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 176.
Most members of the Committtee were pleased when the Government announced that they intended to remove Crown immunity, but particularly disappointed that, when the Bill returned from another place, it was discovered that the Government had decided to restore Crown immunity in respect of smoke emissions or noise from Ministry of Defence premises.
It seems odd that the Government did not tell us in Committee in this House that they intended to reserve that immunity in respect of the Ministry of Defence, and that is occurred to them only when the Bill was returned by the Lords.
The undertaking given by the Government in the other place was also very odd. There might be an argument for retaining Crown immunity in respect of military operations, although I am not happy about the safeguards for people living close to MOD establishments. Even so, I do not understand why the Ministry should enjoy immunity in respect of activities that are the subject of legislation to which others must conform.
It seems crazy that a Ministry of Defence hospital operating an incinerator for disposing of medical waste will not need to comply with the Bill's provisions whereas a national health service hospital will—and ridiculous that, whereas a building that is the source of noise created by a late-night party, for example, will also be subject to the Bill, whereas premises occupied by the MOD will not.
It might have been reasonable if the Government had sought an exemption in respect of military operations, but it is not acceptable to demand blanket exemption. I hope that the Minister will offfer a better explanation of why that is necessary than was given in another place. Otherwise, we shall conclude that, as in so many other areas, Ministers from the Department of the Environment get turned over by Cabinet colleagues, and that every proposal that they make ends up being severely modified as a result of the activities of other cabinet members.

Mr. Trippier: Even though the statement by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in another place, Lord Arran, may not have satisfied the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), it certainly satisfied their Lordships. I shall endeavour to explain why it should also satisfy the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) might have expected, I claim that amendment No. 79 covers the situation that he described. I have a great deal of sympathy with his comments in respect of those of his constituents who want recourse to law and for the legal process to be dealt with speedily, just as I do with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sorry that those points were not raised in Committee, when we could have discussed them fully.
In preparing for today's debate, I wanted to be convinced that adequate compensation will be available for those people who are aggrieved and take their case to a magistrates court—and I am satisfied that there will, provided that the case is well founded.
Amendment No. 178, which we have yet to consider, will enable a court to award backdated compensation, as is the present position under the Public Health Act 1936 in respect of action taken by private individuals. The House will forgive me if I am not familiar with the Cardiff Crown court case, but I was concerned that assistance should be available to any individual who felt aggrieved that they had received unsatisfactory service from their local authority.
The hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the fact that, on occasion, law centres can assist his constituents, as indeed they can assist all our constituents if they have such a law centre. However there are other fairly sophisticated, informed bodies which will assist a constituent in such a dilemma for no charge whatsoever. I am thinking especially of Shelter or, in London, SHAC. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the magistrates in such cases.
The hon. Member for Norwood seems to be suggesting—it unnerves me slightly—that he does not have faith in the magistracy to determine whether the aggrieved constituent—the plaintiff—is right to bring the action in the first place.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister is missing the point completely. The local authority will be the prosecuting authority, unless it is also the defendant. The amendment provides that the local authority cannot be both prosecutor and defendant. Therefore, a third party is appointed to prosecute the local authority. There is no criticism of the magistracy, as they are first class. There is some criticism about funding for advice centres, but the main point is that at the moment the local authority cannot be both prosecutor and defendant. I want to correct that imbalance.

Mr. Trippier: There is no problem if the case can be brought by an organisation such as Shelter or SHAC. It is clear from the wording of the amendment—the hon. Gentleman has already said that the wording may not be perfect—that it gives an impression that an aggrieved individual could take the matter to the magistrates court. That is the whole point of clause 79. When someone else could be invited by the tenant to take the local authority to court, the remedy is open to them to do that. We have allowed that in clause 79.
We are not merely talking about law centres, Shelter and SHAC; there are citizens' advice bureaux and other organisations, which are quite used to taking cases of this kind and to supporting aggrieved individuals.
There is no lack of sympathy on the Conservative Benches or in the Government's mind about what is being said, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of clause 79 is to deal with that particular aggravation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister is beginning to understand, but there is still a problem: if Parliament charges local authorities with being the statutory body responsible for upholding environmental health, it is natural that people will go regularly to the authority to seek enforcement of their rights as regards public health. This is the one occasion, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, when the local authority is forbidden to act because it would be the defendant. We are seeking to provide a route whereby the complaint can go from there to somewhere else. The amendment provides an easy but automatic mechanism. Otherwise, we shall have to rely on non-statutory provisions, which may not always work.

Mr. Trippier: There is not merely a disagreement between the hon. Members for Norwood and for Southwark and Bermondsey and myself—there is a yawning chasm. The precise point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is met by clause 79.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is making. It is true that, given the statutory responsibility of the environmental health officer, under normal circumstances an individual would go to that officer to ask for support in the case that he was seeking to advance. Therefore, it would clearly be ludicrous for the environmental health officer, who is paid by the local authority, to take the case to court against the authority which is his paymaster. The hon. Gentleman made that point well, as did the hon. Member for Norwood.
That is not at issue. Clause 79 allows an aggrieved individual to take a case directly to court—just as, in part IV of the Bill, which deals with litter provisions, we have written it large that any individual can take a local authority to court if he is not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness.

Mr. Fraser: There is no symmetry. If the local authority prosecutes, it uses its own solicitors department. The prosecutor does not incur any expense. The local authority can also instruct counsel. If a constituent has to go to a citizens advice bureau, or someone else, he or she has to pay the solicitor or barrister to appear in court. There is no symmetry between a person appearing on his or her own behalf to prosecute an authority that will instruct a barrister to defend the proceedings, and a local authority using a solicitor or barrister to prosecute any other landlord.

Mr. Trippier: I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree. There is a clear symmetry between that and what has been on the statute book for a considerable period. Any individual can take a local authority to court if he is aggrieved over a housing defect or a public nuisance of most kinds. If a constituent of the hon. Member for Norwood takes his case to the magistrates court—I am pleased to hear that he has the utmost faith in the magistracy to decide such cases—and has it upheld there, an order will be made against the local

authority that makes it clear that it has to comply quickly with the order. Moreover, costs will be awarded in favour of the plaintiff. It cannot be any clearer than that.
The hon. Gentleman asks the Government to accept the amendment. However, it would introduce another form of bureaucracy—another independent body that would give advice on whether the plaintiff was right. By any standard, that is second-guessing the individual who is taking the case to court. The hon. Gentleman would have me if the Bill did not contain a provision for an individual to take his case to the lower court. However, it contains such a provision. It meets precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I want to keep it that way. I am sure that he too, as a lawyer, has faith in the magistrates courts to deal with the point. It is already covered.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), Lord Arran made a statement in the other place in which he concluded that, in certain circumstances, the application of the clause to which he referred would impose unreasonable constraints on Ministry of Defence activities as they affect the defence of the realm. Clause 76 places a duty on every local authority to inspect its area from time to time to detect and, under subsequent clauses, to take action on specified types of nuisance. The two types of activity that it was agreed should not apply to defence activities are smoke and noise. That will interest the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in particular.
The Ministry of Defence is currently exempt from all statutory nuisance legislation. Even as amended, therefore, part III will increase the degree of legislative control to which the Ministry is subject. It is evident that our armed forces cannot be properly trained and equipped without the generation of smoke and noise, which sometimes constitute a nuisance. For instance, soldiers will not be effective in wartime if they have not had realistic training, which includes the use of smoke screens, tank manoeuvres and the firing of weapons. Similarly, the equipment that they use needs to be tested in the open. It will generate smoke and, I admit noise. If statutory nuisance legislation were to be applied to such activities, they might become impossible, with serious consequences.
In the light of that information, which only echoes what was said by Lord Arran in the other place, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the amendment, as their Lordships did.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister does not say that only military manouevres will be exempt. He says that all the Ministry of Defence's activities will be exempt. An example that was given in the other place was fire-fighting exercises. The argument was that the Ministry of Defence needs to practise fire fighting and that fires would have to be started for that purpose. Ordinary fire-fighting services will not be granted such an exemption, on similar grounds. They will have to comply with the law. Why will the Ministry of Defence not have to comply with the law? The exemption just outlined by the Minister seems to be reasonable. What is not reasonable is to give exemption for incinerators, smoke from military hospitals and noise from barracks.

Mr. Trippier: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we have no intention of letting the armed services hide behind the exemption to which we


are both referring and to generate smoke or noise nuisances where they can be avoided. It would be of little value to specify in the amendment premises which give rise to smoke and noise nuisance for operational reasons. That is potentially the case for much of the defence estate, where nuisances that we would wish to avoid could occur too.
The Ministry of Defence has instead issued a policy statement to all their formations, and to those of the United States armed forces in the United Kingdom, stating the extent to which smoke and noise nuisance is constrained. Copies of the statement have been placed in the Library in response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).
11 pm
That policy statement makes it clear that domestic activities—non-operational activities such as building work, hospital incinerators and industrial type processes—should not cause smoke and nuisance. The statement does not stop there: it sets very strict limits on what constitutes operationally necessary smoke and noise, where that is operationally necessary. The Government undertake to ensure that the letter and spirit of that policy statement are followed at all times.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 79

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY STATUTORY NUISANCES

Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 85, line 41, at end insert
and may also impose on the defendant a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will he convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 182 and 187.

Mr. Marland: It is disappointing that neither under part III of the Bill nor in the Lords amendments is there any specific reference to the containment of chlorofluorocarbon gas. CFCs are greenhouse gases and are up to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. They do enormous damage to the ozone layer, with the subsequent damage to the earth's surface that will flow from that.
CFCs are mainly used as a propellant or blowing agent and have been found a great deal in aerosols, although alternatives to CFCs as a blowing agent in aerosols are being produced. They are used in air conditioning units, in insulating cavity walls and in refrigerators. They are used for putting the insulating foam into the walls of refrigerators and in the coolant in the back of the refrigerator.
An enormous amount of CFC gases is in use. Some local authorities, and I am pleased that Gloucestershire is one of them, are making an effort to milk the refrigerant from the back of old refrigerators. However, they are only scratching the surface of the problem. It is estimated that 33 million domestic refrigerators are in use in the United Kingdom, and 3 million more refrigerators are being used every year. It is estimated that it will be five years before

CFCs are designed out of refrigerator foam. Over the next five years, 48 million refrigerators will vent into the atmosphere, producing almost 32,000 tonnes of CFC gas.
The major problem is that the overall percentage of CFCs in refrigerators comes not from the coolant but from the foam round the outside of it. The German Government have recognised the problem and have passed laws outlawing the venting into the atmosphere of CFC gas from refrigerators. German Landers, the local authority areas, are stockpiling refrigerators until they can be treated.
It is important to point out that the joint working party of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Institute of Wastes Management recommended recently the enactment of legislation in the United Kingdom requiring the recovery of CFCs from refrigerants in the short term and the phasing in of the requirement to recover all CFCs from insulating foam as soon as that is feasible.
The technology to recover CFCs from both coolant and insulating foam in domestic refrigerators is now at hand. Encouragement is required to ensure that the new technology is used efficiently and effectively. This can probably come about only through legislation and by steering local authorities on what they should do in destroying refrigerators.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that suitable legislation for the safe processing of domestic refrigerators and insulating foam can be produced under this part of the Bill?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Much good work has been done, particularly by ICI at Runcorn. It serves no purpose to suggest that industry is not trying. Many of us have the impression that industry is trying hard to overcome this fundamental problem.
If we are to be realistic about recovering CFCs from refrigerators, and there are to be regulations, let alone legislation, is not it important that the measures should relate to the design stage of the refrigerators? Recovery is very much easier if a refrigerator is designed for its eventual death. This is not an easy problem, but I should like to hear the Government's comments on any plans that they have in mind.

Mr. Cryer: It would be helpful to know the Government's attitude in general towards this problem. It is important to introduce regulations controlling the recovery of CFCs from domestic and industrial refrigerators when their time expires. They should not be vented into the atmosphere. There is already legislation dealing with the disposal of refrigerators because of the danger of CFCs and because children become trapped in them.
The Government permit the export of between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes a year of CFCs. There is little point in pursuing controls over the recovery of CFCs in refrigerators in the United Kingdom when the Government are exporting CFCs to countries where there is a minimal possibility that they will scrutinise use and disposal in the way we do. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the export of CFCs will be rapidly curtailed. Although I am sure that it is not a responsibility of his Department, it would be absurd for the Department of the Environment to introduce controls on the disposal of existing CFCs in refrigerators while the Department of


Trade permits the export of thousands of tonnes of CFCs to other countries. Whether the CFCs are in domestic refrigerators or in exported goods, they still affect the ozone layer. It is important to tackle both.
I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will refer this matter to the Department of Trade, which was extremely elusive about providing me with information when I asked questions about the export of CFCs. The first Minister told me that the statistics were not collected. Fortunately, it was discovered shortly after that the statistics were collected. They were provided in a parliamentary answer in Hansard at the beginning of the final part of the Session. As this information is circulating and the Department of the Environment is now sweeping all these environmental pollutants away with its new broom, I hope that the Department will send that new broom to other Departments of State.

Mr. Trippier: Let me begin by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who asked whether I could give him an assurance that, at some future stage and without having recourse to primary legislation, the matter that he brought to our attention could be addressed by regulation, by order or whatever. My answer to his question is, not under clause 79, which we are now considering. But—I hope that I shall be able to get this confirmed in the Department tomorrow—my clear reading of the financial and explanatory memorandum is that such secondary legislation might be introduced under clause 82. I quote:
Clause 82 amends the Clean Air Acts to allow regulations to be made under affirmative resolution procedure to extend the controls over smoke, grit, dust and fume emissions to any specified gaseous emissions.
I think that that covers the matter and that, had my hon. Friend asked me the same question in respect of clause 82, I could have said yes. I shall confirm that to him by letter tomorrow. I had better make it clear that I am no lawyer, but I think that I will be right on that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made it perfectly clear that great advances had been made in CFC substitution. That is a source of great pride to British people who believe that ICI played no small part in the development of such substitutes—more commonly known as HCFCs. No one is kidding himself—least of all me—that those substitutes are the complete answer. As I think the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, even they can be harmful, but to an infinitesimal degree compared with the chlorofluorocarbons with which we are all familiar. The perfect answer has not yet been found and, to my knowledge, we have not yet found a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration. Great progress has been made on substitute CFCs in aerosols, however, and I do not think that it will be very long before technology is so advanced that an effective substitute for the use of CFCs in refrigeration is found. In that regard, research is being conducted with a consortium that includes DuPont as well as ICI.
My concern for what happens in the developing and third world countries, especially with regard to the use of CFCs, is shared by other hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Let me refer to the ozone layer conference held in London in June this year. It was perfectly clear to me that we could persuade the Indians and the Chinese to sign the amended Montreal

protocol only if we offered them assistance not only through the recognised overseas aid routes but through the transfer of technology. I see no future in those countries—or in any other countries for that matter—continuing to use CFCs when the developed countries have already undertaken, under the Montreal protocol, to reduce their use. This country is 10 years ahead of its international obligations in that regard.
The third world and developing countries look to the industrialised and developed countries to put all these matters right because they genuinely believe that it is entirely our fault that the problem has arisen and that the hole in the ozone layer has been created. I think that they are right, by the way, but in a speech on this subject in Cairo in December last year, I made it clear that even if all the industrialised countries or all the OECD countries reduced their use of CFCs, we should never repair the hole in the ozone layer if the developing and third world countries continued to use them. That is a statement of fact; it is not hypothesis.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South. We should not be encouraging the use of CFCs without the substitutes in those countries. We have now managed to persuade companies like ICI to make available the technology transfer which will use substitutes instead of CFCs. The meeting to that end took place during the same week as the ozone layer conference was held in London, and I was party to that meeting with Chris Hampson, ICI's main board director.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South can take comfort from the fact that we are all singing from the same song sheet. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we had not had the undertaking, India and China would not have signed the protocol at the end of that week.

Mr. Dalyell: May I have an undertaking that I will receive a letter about the alterations that can be made at the design stage of refrigerators and other CFC-using equipment?

Mr. Trippier: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific details about that, as I am not qualified to do so. However, I will write to him about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 183, in page 85, line 45, at end insert—
("(3D) An appeal against any decision of a magistrates' court on a complaint for an order under subsection (2) above shall lie to the Crown Court at the instance of any party to the proceedings.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I believe that the Government took the contrary view in the other place and supported the right of appeal to the Crown court. I was persuaded that that was a proper and right course and I am intrigued to know what revelation has caused the Government to take a different view now that the matter has come back to this place. It seems proper to allow an appeal on these important matters to the Crown court, and I should be interested to learn what has changed.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Amendment No. 183 was tabled by Lord Nathan on


Report in another place and it was accepted by the Government. At that stage, clause 79 was drafted in terms which meant that proceedings for a nuisance under subsections (1) and (2) were civil in character. Hence it was necessary to make specific provision for a right of appeal to the Crown court.
On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Byron tabled amendment No. 178, which was designed to restore the current position under the Public Health Act 1936, under which a magistrates court is empowered to impose a fine at the same time as it makes a nuisance order. As the matter will be heard in a magistrates court, the right of appeal is implicit. Amendment No. 183, as it was originally tabled, is unnecessary and otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right and proper to overturn it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I do not agree necessarily with all new provisions with regard to proceedings for statutory nuisance in the magistrates court, the amendment seems persuasive, as the matter is now a criminal offence and the right of appeal follows automatically to the Crown court.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

[One with Special Entry.]

New clause

TRANSITIONAL PROVISION RELATING TO SECTION 86

Lords amendment: No. 209, to insert the following new clause—

("—(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of the transition to the duties imposed by section 86 above on local authorities and educational bodies, by regulations, make provision—
(a) modifying that section. or
(b) modifying Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 (competition rules for functional work or works contracts).

(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different descriptions of authorities, different areas or other different circumstances or cases.

(3) In this section—
"educational bodies" means the governing bodies and education authorities mentioned in section 88(1)(f) above; and
"local authorities" means the local authorities mentioned in section 88(1)(a) and (c) and (2)(a) above.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss amendments (a) and (b) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 305.

Ms. Joan Walley: Opposition Members are very concerned about the continuing problem relating to the code of practice applying to litter. It was raised early in our consideration of the Bill; it was also raised with me, at a conference that I attended on 24 September—a joint conference involving both the Association of Direct Labour Organisations and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
The problem appears to have resulted from the Local Government Act 1988, which provides for compulsory competitive tendering. That Act cuts right across this Bill. It seems clear to local authorities that now have the responsibility of introducing CCT that it will be almost impossible for them to build it on to the code of practice—which, I understand, has not yet been finally agreed, although it has already been through at least seven drafts.
If the Government are talking about the importance of environmental protection, and about the need for it to cut across all local authority services, they should recognise the problem that they have created for themselves. The Secretary of State has powers to make changes to clause 86, which applies the code of practice to local authorities. What worries us is what will happen when a council has already tendered, under CCT, and a contract—whether in-house or outside—has already been properly agreed within the terms of the 1988 Act.
More important, what about the transitional arrangements between the existing tender and the new code? It is fair to say that the Government have recognised the problem, and, in the other place, have gone some way towards taking it on board. Nevertheless, there could well be a difference in the Government's interpretation of the Act: contracts already won in-house could be treated differently from those won by outside contractors.
It matters to us that local authorities should be able to enforce the code of practice on litter, when it is finally agreed, in a uniform way throughout the country, and that we should not have different standards of litter as a result of the lack of timetabling in respect of the implementation of CCT. It is likely that the litter duties, which were based on the code of practice that was introduced by the Tidy Britain Group, have been dreamt up without any serious consideration of how they cut across the rolling programme of CCT for street cleansing.
We welcome the changed deadlines that have already been introduced, which mean that CCT will be delayed, in one case, until 1 August and in other cases, until 1 January 1992. We accept that some progress has been made, but we want an assurance from the Minister that authorities will not be required again to undertake tendering processes that they have already gone through in the current round. We want to know also that the two kinds of contract—in-house and outside—are being dealt with in the same way. How do the Government intend to resolve the enormous problems to which they have already admitted in their deliberations?
We want certain assurances: first, that the introduction of the code will not lead to waste and dislocation caused by a further round of tendering for any authority; secondly, that authorities' problems with in-house and outside services will be considered as a whole; thirdly, that there will be no different treatment between the two types of services; fourthly, that, as a result, the Government will review their interpretation of section 7(8) of the 1988 Act; and, fifthly, that discussions with local authority associations will proceed as soon as possible. Local authority associations in particular have expressed concern about the situation in which they now find themselves.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make transitional provisions to protect the position of authorities that already assigned contracts for the provision of the relevant services under


the competitive tendering legislation before the new litter code was published. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has acknowledged that we have already moved a number of deadlines to accommodate the position of those authorities which might otherwise have had insufficient time to take account of the new litter standards.
We recognise that contracts are likely to have to be modified to take account of the standards of litter clearance that will be required by the code. The dates that we have moved are the rounds of competition which were due to be completed by 1 January and 1 August next year. They have been moved back to 1 August 1991 and 1 January respectively. It will be possible for authorities to take full account of the code when they draw up their specifications.
Where contracts had already been let before the code was promulgated, the new clause will give the Secretary of State power to make the necessary transitional arrangements. They will provide for any additional work which may be necessary to be taken on board. They will also protect the position of authorities until such time as that can be done. They will cover cases in which contracts have been let to the private sector and also those in which work has been assigned to an authority's own direct service organisation.
I can promise the hon. Lady that we will consult local authority associations on the details of how to reconcile the needs of competitive tendering with the parallel need to implement the new litter standards as soon as possible. I recognise that that is an issue. I know also that compulsory competitive tendering has brought significant benefits not just to local community charge payers but to authorities. It has required them to define duties and has ensured that the work is tested in the market place to ensure value for money. We do not wish to relinquish those gains.
11.30 pm
I am sure that the hon. Lady will also recognise the need to implement the new litter code as widely and consistently as possible. I am sure that she would not like the standards to be pepper-potted about the country any more than is absolutely necessary, and that she will therefore join me in hoping that we can work out the details of implementing the new litter duties as soon as possible. These have not yet been finalised, but I undertake to consult the local authority associations on the proposals when they are available.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Inter-country Adoption

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of inter-country adoption on the Adjournment. I am especially grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is giving her time to reply to the debate. More than one Department is involved, but I am especially grateful that she is here this evening, and should like to record my appreciation of her long experience with these matters, and her awareness of the sensitivity of issues that concern both the needs of the children who require adoption and the parents who are interested in adopting.
My hon. Friend will be aware of my personal interest in the matters, as an adoptive parent, and of my support for her during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which should do so much to help childless couples. My interest in inter-country adoption is not quite so close although Stephen, our child, comes from Wales and I suppose that one could call that inter-country adoption.
My first real experience of the subject came when I visited Hong Kong three years ago. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will have this opportunity, but if she is in Hong Kong, I recommend her to go to the Home for Loving Faithfulness because it is the most extraordinary establishment, which takes in severely handicapped Chinese orphans and cares for them. It has been most successful in finding adoptive homes all over the world for those Chinese children. If my hon. Friend ever has the opportunity, I recommend that she sees that establishment, which is a particularly fine example of inter-country adoption finding the right homes for the right children. It would be a great mistake and naive to imagine that the right homes for those Chinese children could be found in Hong Kong because the Chinese culture does not accept adoption, let alone the adoption of severely handicapped children. The needs of those children in Hong Kong will no doubt become even greater when Hong Kong becomes part of the Chinese mainland.
My other interest in this subject comes through one of my constituents who is a Colombian lady who, for medical reasons, found it difficult to have a second child herself. She was interested in adopting a Colombian child, but found the procedural difficulties so great that she felt that she might be better to try to have a child herself although her doctor advised against it. I quote that as an example of where the procedural difficulties of inter-country adoption should not be used as an obstruction when it leads to a lady trying to have a child when her doctor has advised against it.
The history of inter-country adoption includes the great interest in it at the time of the crisis in Columbia in the early 1980s when orphans were tipped on to the streets at an age of seven or eight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the considerable amount of work done by Lady Glover, Baroness Faithful and many others in an attempt to set up an agency to help with inter-country adoptions. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering attempted to find out more of the difficulties at the time. I have looked at some of the old files on meetings with Ministers and many of the people


involved with setting up such an agency at that time. Everyone agreed that an agency was needed. I am sorry that it did not come about a few years ago. Obviously, it was close to happening. It was probably fears of baby-trafficking and so on that led to the idea being dropped. But I am sure that the need was fully recognised by all involved. I am sorry that the difficulties prevented an agency from being set up.
At Christmas last year we all suddenly became aware of the dreadful crisis in Romania when the horrors of the Ceausescu regime were made apparent after the revolution. The situation was appalling. Mothers were forced to have five children. No contraceptives were available. No abortion was allowed. The result was the most appalling orphanages, with in excess of 100,000 orphans. Some people have estimated that there could be 200,000 children in orphanages in the most disgraceful and awful conditions. There are no trained nurses. The nurses training schools have been closed down. The children's health is exposed to terrible hazards. AIDS and hepatitis are rampant.
The common humanitarian instinct to help led so many people to offer to adopt or foster at that time. I understand that there were 4,000 'phone calls in the first week of the new year to the Flanders and Scottish Alliance, and 50 'phone calls a day to the National Association for the Childless from couples who were offering to adopt.
Obviously, one would want to help the Romanian authorities in every way possible. I was disappointed to hear in a debate just last week on aid from the European Community to eastern Europe that there is to be no aid to the Romanian Government from the EC because of dissatisfaction with the new Government and the poor state of the democracy in that country. The level of official aid from the United Kingdom to Romania was quoted in the debate as only £900,000 so far. That is no more than £5 or £10 for each orphan. So much more needs to be done. However, the children do not need only aid. They need love and care. As Claire Rayner said in the very good TV-AM series, the children need TLC—tender loving care. That is what I should like to impress on my hon. Friend the Minister most of all.
British couples who have been over to Romania say that couples from other countries such as France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the United States of America and Canada receive much more help than British couples. Those countries have waived restrictions because of the humanitarian problems, which have reached such crisis proportions in Romania.
In Britain it seems that we have been perhaps a little over-obsessed with the difficulties of which we were aware in the past such as scares about trafficking and illegal immigration and the breakdown of adoptions. Perhaps we have allowed those fears to stand in the way of helping would-be adoptive couples who want to do all that they can to help in the crisis. We seem to have too many bureaucratic barriers. Local authorities seem to be among the worst at creating such barriers. As a result of that, I took a petition to the Prime Minister last July from 14 couples who wanted help to overcome the obstacles.
One accepts fully the United Nations declaration that, of course, the child must come first and should be helped to stay in the country of its birth if at all possible. But where it is clear that at least for some orphans adoption is the best solution, any delays are not to the advantage of the child.
I should like to quote to my hon. Friend some of the problems that would-be parents are now experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) has passed on to me two letters that he has received in the past few days. One letter dated 14 October said that current delays on the part of local authorities were running at three months. Those delays concerned an 18-month-old girl who had been discovered in Romania abandoned without even a name. The other letter dated 23 September said that people feel
under pressure to break the law in order to safeguard their babies
The Minister will be aware of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who has also drawn attention to certain cases with which he is concerned. A couple in his constituency have written to me to say that the Romanian lawyer with whom they dealt said that he would not deal with any other English couple because
you are treated as though you are criminals for wanting to give a home to these babies.
It is clear that people are experiencing severe bureaucratic delays and that there is an urgent need for a helpline service and an inter-country adoption agency to help such couples. At the very least a helpline should be established—it could either be a free-standing agency or the service could be provided by one of the existing voluntary agencies. Parents feel that their patience has been exhausted and that they should not be left alone to battle against large monopolistic bureaucracies. Those parents' needs were recognised many years ago and, if we do not do something to regularise the procedures, we shall continue to risk the danger of children coming into the country through the back door. The authorities would then be presented with those babies as a fait accompli.
The helpline and the inter-country adoption agency could supply information to couples and counsel them. To adopt a child from abroad is not simple and all couples considering such an adoption should be counselled in the best possible manner. Those who go ahead with such an adoption should be assisted with the paperwork and the other forms of bureaucracy that they will encounter. Local authorities should be pressed to act promptly when there is a danger of delay. Those authorities should not hesitate to use outside social workers if that would help to speed up the process.
The agency could also help and support parents once they have gone through the process of adoption. It is riot easy to bring up one's own children and obviously parents would require further help to bring up a child adopted from abroad. I have no evidence, however, that such adoptions have led to an excessive number of breakdowns and we should not reject inter-country adoption of those grounds.
I hope that the Government will encourage an existing agency to take on an inter-country adoption service. Ideally that should be undertaken by an organisation such as the BAAF, but there are others that could consider that task. If that does not happen, the parents are resolved to set up their own agency under the suggested name, the British Overseas Adoption Agency, which would be supported by groups such as Stork—the parent support operation already operating—the National Association for the Childless, the Inter-Country Adoption Social Workers Group, and family groups in different parts of the


country. For the sake of the children and their prospective families, we should act. It is not good enough to leave things as they are.
The most recent and comprehensive published statement of local authority opinion on the matter appeared in the information complied by the children's legal centre at the end of 1988. Of the 59 authorities that replied to the questionnaire, 36 had no specific policy, four said that they were discussing one and some authorities, for example, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Lewisham, stated unequivocally that they would not be prepared to undertake any assessments at the request of applicants or agencies from abroad. Somerset authority stated:
This authority does not assist in making arrangements for inter-country adoption, but would meet its responsibilities under the 1986 Adoption Act sections 1 and 2 by giving advice to inquirers on the legal processes to be followed and try to ensure that they have properly addressed and thought through the issues involved.
If departments are obstructive and couples are a a loss to know where else to seek information, they may be desperate enough to bring overseas children into this country without entry clearance, as has occurred.
Unless we establish a co-ordinated service in which proper regulation can be assured, future participation and co-operation on an international level might be restricted. Britain is one of the few countries not to have a specialised overseas adoption agency and we must avoid any danger of isolation from continuing international initiatives. The Hague convention is in the process of drafting new directives on inter-country adoption and will be meeting at the international convention on private law in 1993, where receiving and sending countries will agree on criteria, and establish standards, to protect children.
Clearly there is a will to adopt, and clearly there are many Romanian children for whom adoption, far from depriving them of a secure future in the country of their origin, would be saving them from years of institutionalised misery at best and death at worst.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A parliamentary answer on 22 October showed that only one mentally handicapped child has been adopted from Romania. She is Emese Gabor, who was adopted by Bev and Ruth Smith of Killamarsh in Derbyshire. Bev Smith had to visit Romania four times, and there were considerable difficulties with the authorities there, including, initially, the British embassy. There was a host of dedicated activity because Bev and Ruth Smith were committed to adopting a mentally handicapped child. It was the third such child whom they had adopted, in addition to having a mentally handicapped child of their own. That experience illustrates that something special is needed if mentally handicapped children are to be adopted from Romania.

Mr. Thurnham: That is a commendable example of how inter-country adoption can be especially helpful in finding the right home for mentally handicapped children.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took on board the strong message from parents that something must be done. I hope that the Government will encourage the establishment of a suitable service either through the aegis of an existing voluntary organisation or by setting up a new organisation with official recognition.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,. North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in once again bringing before the House a subject of great concern and interest to many hon. Members. He referred to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) contributed to the debate and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is in the Chamber. He has also raised this issue on behalf of a number of his constituents.
The whole issue of inter-county adoption must be viewed not only in terms of the poignant and troublesome circumstances in Romania, but against the position in this country, where the number of babies available for adoption has declined sharply in recent years. Often there is the poignant combination of parents who cannot have children alongside pictures in the newspapers and on television of children who are neglected and deprived of even the basic necessities of life.
Some parents have to wait an inordinate length of time before documentation is cleared. They become frustrated and exasperated and, on too many occasions, take the law into their own hands and go out to find a child. I say clearly and strongly that the decision to adopt a child is an enormously serious one. It is essential that the necessary safeguards are taken. There can be no question of having a lower standard of proof or satisfaction as to the suitability of parents for children from overseas than there would be for children at home. We have made great efforts to work with local authorities and have issued guidance to make it quite clear what the procedure should be in an attempt to ensure that needless delays can be circumvented. An example is that traditionally it has been the case that adoptive parents would have to be approved for a particular named child, so it would be impossible to do the home study until after the child had been identified. In the most recent guidance from Bill Utting of the social services inspectorate, we make it clear to local authorities that those are circumstances in which it is appropriate to make a home study report in advance.
We appreciate that many local authorities believe that they have more pressing needs for their skills and demands on their services and wish to find homes for the children who are already their statutory responsibility. There is the development of adoption of handicapped children who, in times gone by, could not have hoped to have a normal upbringing with a family. To accommodate the understandable concerns of local authorities we have made it clear that it is quite appropriate for a charge to be made for parents seeking a home study report for an inter-country adoption.
I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the safeguards are an essential part of protecting children. Children's needs should be paramount in these considerations. Children need families, but no parent has a right to a child. I hope that the House would agree that this must be the way in which we approach inter-country adoption.
My hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations convention on foster placement and adoption, nationally and internationally. It provides that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of providing a family for a child who cannot be cared for in


a suitable manner in his or her own country. In all matters relating to the placement of a child outside the care of a child's own parents, the child's best interests should be the paramount consideration.
Safeguards and standards equivalent to those which apply to national adoption are to be applied to inter-country adoption to protect the welfare of the child involved. The more recent 1989 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, to which the Government are already signatories and which we hope to ratify soon, will contain strict safeguards on inter-country adoption.
I join my hon. Friend and others in congratulating those who have responded to the tragic situation in Romania by the provision of international aid in a number of ways. There is no embargo on humanitarian aid. The aid in Romania has come from both governmental and voluntary sources. The United Kingdom has already contributed £6·6 million of humanitarian aid, including medical supplies that are so greatly needed. The EC Commission recently set up a programme of aid specifically for children in Romania, to which we are contributing generously. Some £3·8 million has already been promised for supplies and heating in orphanages, and more is promised. There have also been the numerous voluntary efforts which we all applaud. The Romanian Orphanage Trust is a notable example. It intends to ensure that the children of Romania are able to stay in their own country.
The theme of my hon. Friend's debate was inter-country adoption, and he said that there was no inter-country adoption agency in this country. We have a long tradition of adoption and can rightly take pride in the effectiveness and thoroughness with which it is undertaken. In some countries there is adoption only from overseas, so clearly the inter-country adoption agency is the route that has been chosen. Adoption provision is undertaken either by the country's 108 local authorities or by approved voluntary adoption agencies. Within that context, we must seek to develop better services and advice for parents—some of whom encounter a great deal of cumbersome negotiations in endeavouring to establish the facts and what requirements they must meet to undertake an inter-country adoption.
It is neither right nor proper if those to whom those people turn for advice are those who buck the system, and whose action is not something that any right hon. or hon. Member would endorse or support. The Government would welcome, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, the involvement of one of the adoption agencies if it were prepared to take on a particular role in respect of inter-country adoption. That would provide a safe, reliable and sympathetic source of preliminary advice for parents wanting to embark on that course.
It is important that prospective parents should arrive at the moment when they remove the rose-tinted spectacles and discard the surge of emotion that may prompt them first to consider inter-country adoption, and should consider in the cold light of day the long-term implications of adopting a child from a different country and culture who may not be healthy. They must be sure that they have the commitment identified by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, in describing his constituents. Prospective parents must also be confident of being able to offer the skills that the House recognises in my hon. Friend

the Member for Bolton, North-East. No one could speak with greater authority and from more experience of inter-country adoption than him.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My wife and I volunteered to be short-term foster parents when my wife was pregnant with our first child. We were amazed at the bureaucracy involved and the time that it took, and even more amazed at being told how careful the authorities were, because between the time that they undertook their investigations and decided that we would make suitable parents, I had lost my job and all our circumstances had changed—and the authorities know nothing of that. I am very concerned, from experience of two cases in my constituency, that the bureaucracy is not working. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to all social services departments not that their investigations need be anything less than thorough, but that they should be completed quickly.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies precisely the dilemma. When a couple known to him or to others of us, who are laudable, responsible, public-spirited and free from criminal convictions, apply to be foster or adoptive parents and it takes an inordinate length of time, that is described as bureaucracy. But if a child is placed with far from satisfactory adoptive or foster parents, that is described as negligence on the part of the local authority in fulfulling its duties. Difficult judgments must be made, together with checks on criminal and health records, but they are essential in safeguarding a child's welfare. A child from overseas is all the more entitled to a home that we can be satisfied meets the local authority's safeguards.
A local authority or approved adoption society must undertake that work because if, in unforeseen circumstances, anything goes wrong with a placement, that agency must take responsibility for the child. That is why it is not possible for some well-meaning, international agency with no long-term responsibility to step in. It would be unable to provide the long-term support, guidance and advice that may be required.
It is important that we have more up-to-date information about what the precise situation in Romania is. In some cases, it seems that prospective parents are quarrelling over the same child, and entry certificates are claimed on the same child. Stories about the circumstances in orphanages make parents reluctant to leave the child there while they satisfy all the necessary steps and safeguards.
For those reasons I have asked officials from the Department of Health, and the Home Office to visit Romania in the near future to satisfy themselves of the position there and to ensure that the Romanians understand the procedures which we need to satisfy ourselves that the child's welfare will be properly safeguarded.
The aim of the visit will be to learn more at first hand about the situation there and about the children who are in need of adoptive families, so that we shall be better placed to advise agencies and adopters, and to discuss and explore with the Romanian authorities how co-operation between that country and the United Kingdom can be developed and improved to ensure that the safeguards and the essential legal requirements of both countries are strictly observed in inter-country adoption.
Frankly, the House is agreed that the circumstances in Romania have brought the whole question of inter-country adoption to the fore. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned Colombia. The problem goes back several years.
At the same time we are reviewing adoption law here and will be addressing the problem of inter-country adoption in a working paper to be produced in the new year.
The lessons that my hon. Friend has identified, the improved guidelines produced by the Department of

Health, and the experience of the visit to Romania, together with any plans for establishing an agency in the way that my hon. Friend identified—which might be able to advise, encourage or offer a word of caution to parents where appropriate—will all ensure that our response to these tragic circumstances safeguards the welfare of the children, and enables public-spirited parents, who are properly equipped, to offer a long-term home to children who would otherwise have a distinctly bleak future.

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Twelve midnight.